UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 31, 2011
DAVID GORDON CANTRELL,
MARY LATTIMORE AND ASSOCIATES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
On April 15, 2011, this Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge that the above-referenced matter be dismissed, without leave to amend, as frivolous and failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. As the Magistrate Judge noted, the complaint was "nearly incomprehensible" and did not "provide the defendants with fair notice of what the claims are of the grounds upon which those complaints rest." Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 10, 4:22-24.
Judgment was entered in accordance with the Court's Order on April, 15, 2011. More than four months later, on August 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Amendation" that apparently seeks reinstatement of this action. That request was docketed as a Motion for Reconsideration and the Court will construe it as a Motion for Relief from Final Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Relief under Rule 60(b) is warranted, inter alia, on grounds of mistake or excusable neglect, in instances where newly discovered evidence surfaces, in cases of fraud, and for such other reasons that justify relief.
Plaintiff's one-page request consists of both handwritten notations and pasted bits of statutory authority. Like Plaintiff's complaint, it is virtually incomprehensible and its basis cannot be reasonably ascertained. As such, it fails and Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.