Mira v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas

Opinion

WO

Rachel Mira, ) No. CV-25-02640-PHX-SPL ) ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) ) Deutsche Bank Trust Company ) Americas, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. )

Before the Court is Plaintiff Rachel Mira’s Motion to Reopen Case. (Doc. 20). Although this case is closed, Plaintiff also filed a Motion or Expedited Review (Doc. 21) and an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 22). Courts in this district frequently consider “motions to reopen” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b). See Shandy v. Headley, CV-22-00149-PHX-MTL, 2022 WL 2439219, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 5, 2022); Campbell v. Garza, 2102231PHX2231JATCDB, 2022 WL 1131094, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2022). Thus, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case as a Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order pursuant to Rule 60. Rule 60(b) permits a court to “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” or for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6). Plaintiff’s Motion asserts that reopening the case is warranted because she “has 1 consistently acted in good faith” and because she has not understood her potential claims. (Doc. 20 at 2). Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion does not satisfy the } requirements of Rule 60(b). The Court further notes that pro se status, and a lack of legal sophistication or knowledge, is also not a basis for relief. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to reopen this case to raise entirely new causes of action against Defendants, the Court reminds Plaintiff that the action was dismissed without prejudice. Additionally, because this case is closed, all underlying complaints have been dismissed, and Plaintiff has failed to identify any authority which permits her to file the Motion for Expedited Review (Doc. 21) and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 22), these motions will be stricken. The Court advises Plaintiff that any future filings that are not authorized by the local and federal rules will likewise be stricken. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case (Doc. 20) is denied, and this action shall remain closed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiff’s unauthorized Motion for Expedited Review (Doc. 21) and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 22). Dated this 19th day of August, 2025. Ake United States District dade