Smith v. Adams County Combined Court

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 12, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01603
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW A. SMITH, Case No.: 24cv1603-LL-SBC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT 14 ADAMS COUNTY COMBINED

COURT, 15 [ECF No. 7] Defendant. 16

17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Matthew A. Smith’s Motion to Set Aside Judgement.1 19 ECF No. 7. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 On September 6, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in this Court. 22 ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff 23 amended his Complaint twice. ECF Nos. 3 and 4. Plaintiff’s address is in Colorado. See 24 Docket; see also ECF No. 7. Defendant Adams County Combined Court is also located in 25 Colorado. See ECF No. 1 at 2. On October 7, 2024, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to 26 27 28 1 Proceed in Forma Pauperis and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, both without prejudice. 2 ECF No. 5. The Court stated that “[t]here is no indication that this judicial district has any 3 connection to the alleged acts forming the basis of this lawsuit.” Id. at 2. The Court further 4 stated that “[i]f Plaintiff chooses to refile his Motion to Proceed IFP and/or pay the filing 5 fee, Plaintiff should refile his action in the proper venue.” Id. at 3. 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 Once the Court has issued an order or entered judgment, reconsideration may be 8 sought by filing a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 60(b). See Hinton v. NMI Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993). 10 Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a 11 showing of exceptional circumstances. Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 12 1044 (9th Cir. 1994). Reconsideration may be based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise 13 or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have 14 been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment being void; (5) the 15 judgment having been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 60(b). The last prong is “used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest 17 injustice” and “only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking 18 timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 19 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2007). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 Plaintiff requests in his Motion for “the court to halt on the order and judgment 22 [issued at ECF No. 5].” ECF No. 7 at 1. Plaintiff states “[a]side of any fiduciary 23 responsibility, his constitutional rights, and in light of the overall question their bias of his 24 pro se appearance essentially, his appearance in the correct venue and jurisdiction has 25 become an overall ‘conflict of interest.’” Id. Plaintiff includes a list of cases in his Motion 26 in which he is (or was) purportedly a litigant. Id. at 2-4. Plaintiff has failed to show any of 27 the exceptional circumstances required for this Court to reconsider its previous Order. This 28 Court does not have discretion to hear Plaintiff’s case, even if it is Plaintiff’s preference 1 || based on some alleged “bias.” There is no basis for Plaintiff to file the instant action in this 2 || judicial district. See generally 28 U.S.C § 1391. Because Plaintiff does not meet any of the 3 || grounds for relief under Rule 60(b), the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 7). 6 || This action remains dismissed, and the case closed. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: June 12, 2025 NO 9 DE 10 Honorable Linda Lopez 1 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28