Moreno v. Aukee

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 8, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-04206
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSE RIGOBERTO MORENO, Case No. 19-cv-04206-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO 10 ERIC AUKEE, et al., CONTINUE CASE, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE 11 Defendants. AMENDED COMPLAINT

12 Docket No. 23, 24, 25

13 14 Plaintiff Rigoberto Jose Moreno, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against a long list of 15 defendants. Docket No. 1. On July 31, 2019, the Court granted his request to proceed in forma 16 pauperis. Docket No. 4. However, the Court dismissed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 17 because it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. Mr. Moreno was given 18 leave to file an amended complaint no later than August 30, 2019. Id. Plaintiff was informed that 19 if he failed to file an amended complaint, dismissal would be the likely result. Id. The Court also 20 directed Plaintiff to the Court’s guide for pro se litigants as well as the Legal Help Center. Id. 21 However, Mr. Moreno did not file an amended complaint as he was directed to do by August 30, 22 2019, and the Court dismissed his case on September 20, 2019. See Docket No. 20. 23 On September 27, 2019, Mr. Moreno filed a “Motion to Continue Case, Regarding Status 24 Conference on October 24, 2019.” See Docket No. 23 (“Mot. to Continue”). While Mr. Moreno’s 25 motion is somewhat difficult to decipher, it appears that he is requesting that the case status 26 conference previously set for October 24, 2019 be maintained. However, because Mr. Moreno’s 27 case has been dismissed, there is no need for a case status conference. As a result, Mr. Moreno’s 1 Mr. Moreno has also filed a “Motion to Set Aside Judgement [sic].” See Docket No. 25. 2 || Although he does not mention Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 in this motion, he does mention 3 Rule 60(b)(6) (as well as Rule 60(b)(1)-(5)) in his “Motion to Continue Case.” See Mot. to 4 || Continue at 3. Because he titles his motion as one to set aside a judgment, the Court treats this 5 motion as one for relief under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, there is 6 || nothing in Mr. Moreno’s “Motion to Set Aside Judgement” that would qualify him for relief 7 pursuant to Rule 60(b). He does not allege a mistake by the Court, the existence of newly 8 discovered evidence, fraud, or any other reason that justifies relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); 9 United States v. Real Prop., 164 F.R.D. 496, 499 (C.D. Cal. 1995), aff'd sub nom. United States v. 10 || Real Prop. Described as 3947 Locke Ave., Los Angeles, Cal., 97 F.3d 1462 (9th Cir. 1996) (“any 11 litigant seeking a right to reopen under Rule 60(b) must bring himself within one of the fact 12 || situations listed in that rule”). Asa result, Mr. Moreno’s “Motion to Set Aside Judgement” is 5 13 DENIED. Because the Court declines to set aside its previous judgment, Mr. Moreno’s “Motion 14 for Leave to Amend Complaint in Absence of Undue Delay,” see Docket No. 24, is also 3 15 || DENIED. 16 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 23, 24, and 25.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: October 8, 2019 21 » <4 ED M. CHEN 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28