Smith v. Adams County Combined Court

Opinion

MATTHEW A. SMITH, Case No.: 24cv1603-LL-SBC

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT

COURT, [ECF No. 7] Defendant.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Matthew A. Smith’s Motion to Set Aside Judgement.1 ECF No. 7. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. On September 6, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in this Court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff amended his Complaint twice. ECF Nos. 3 and 4. Plaintiff’s address is in Colorado. See Docket; see also ECF No. 7. Defendant Adams County Combined Court is also located in Colorado. See ECF No. 1 at 2. On October 7, 2024, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, both without prejudice. ECF No. 5. The Court stated that “[t]here is no indication that this judicial district has any connection to the alleged acts forming the basis of this lawsuit.” Id. at 2. The Court further stated that “[i]f Plaintiff chooses to refile his Motion to Proceed IFP and/or pay the filing fee, Plaintiff should refile his action in the proper venue.” Id. at 3. Once the Court has issued an order or entered judgment, reconsideration may be sought by filing a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Hinton v. NMI Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993). Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994). Reconsideration may be based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment being void; (5) the judgment having been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The last prong is “used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice” and “only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff requests in his Motion for “the court to halt on the order and judgment [issued at ECF No. 5].” ECF No. 7 at 1. Plaintiff states “[a]side of any fiduciary responsibility, his constitutional rights, and in light of the overall question their bias of his pro se appearance essentially, his appearance in the correct venue and jurisdiction has become an overall ‘conflict of interest.’” Id. Plaintiff includes a list of cases in his Motion in which he is (or was) purportedly a litigant. Id. at 2-4. Plaintiff has failed to show any of the exceptional circumstances required for this Court to reconsider its previous Order. This Court does not have discretion to hear Plaintiff’s case, even if it is Plaintiff’s preference based on some alleged “bias.” There is no basis for Plaintiff to file the instant action in this judicial district. See generally 28 U.S.C § 1391. Because Plaintiff does not meet any of the grounds for relief under Rule 60(b), the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 7). This action remains dismissed, and the case closed. Dated: June 12, 2025 NO DE Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge