Pattison v. Pruyt

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 8, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00539
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 DANTE PATTISON,

10 Plaintiff, Case No. 3:19-CV-00539-RCJ-CLB 11 vs. ORDER 12 GARRIT PRUYT, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its previous order, (ECF No. 13), finding that any 16 in forma pauperis appeal taken by Plaintiff would “not be taken ‘in good faith’ pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).” Plaintiff argues that he raises “an issue of first impression”—whether Fed. 18 R. Civ. P. 60(b) provides “the right to file ‘new independent equitable actions obtaining relief from 19 judgment’”—and thus his appeal is not in bad faith. (ECF No. 14.) 20 However, Rule 60(b), by its own terms, only allows a party to file a motion in the original 21 action—not an independent cause of action. Cf. Transamerica Mortg. Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 22 U.S. 11, 15 (1979) (“[W]hether a statute creates a cause of action . . . is basically a matter of 23 statutory construction . . . [and] what must ultimately be determined is whether Congress intended 24 to create a private remedy.”). Consequently, any appeal regarding such an argument would be 1 || “plainly frivolous,” and the Court correctly declined to issue a certificate to pursue such an appeal 2 || in forma pauperis. John v. Gibson, 270 F.2d 36, 38-39 (9th Cir. 1959) (citing Farley v. United 3 || States, 354 U.S. 521, 522 (1957)). Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs motion. 4 CONCLUSION 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 14) is 6 || DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated July 8, 2020.

10 ROBERT. JONES 11 United Stateg District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

YQ nf 9