(PS) RuBang v. Brooks ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GONZALO R. RUBANG, JR., No. 2:18-cv-02351-TLN-DB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 ERIC R. BROOKS, et al, 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Gonzalo R. Rubang, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motions 17 to Compel (ECF Nos. 54, 55) and Request for Judgment (ECF No. 56). On February 7, 2020, the 18 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations herein recommending dismissing 19 Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint without prejudice and closing this case. (ECF No. 34.) The 20 findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) 22 Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 35) and subsequently 23 filed a fifth amended complaint (ECF No. 36). On March 24, 2020, this Court adopted the 24 findings and recommendations after reviewing Plaintiff’s filings and entered judgment closing the 25 case. (ECF Nos. 40, 41.) Plaintiff subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which in turn 26 affirmed this Court’s decision. (ECF Nos. 42, 46.) 27 On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion to Compel” (ECF No. 28 1 | 50), followed by a “Motion to Stay” (ECF No. 52). Plaintiff requested the Court require 2 | Defendants to produce Plaintiff's mortgage documents and to stay the case to “lead to more 3 | discoveries of valuable [information].” (ECF No. 52 at 1; ECF No. 50). The Court determined 4 | that the case is closed, and in the event Plaintiff was seeking reconsideration, reconsideration was 5 || not warranted. (ECF No. 53.) 6 Plaintiff has since filed two additional motions to compel mortgage documents. (ECF 7 | Nos. 54,55.) Plaintiff also filed a document titled “Request for Judgment.” (ECF No. 56.) 8 | Again, this case is closed. In the event Plaintiff is asking the Court to reconsider its prior order, 9 || reconsideration is not warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 10 | 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (Pursuant to “Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should 11 | not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with 12 | newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 13 | controlling law.”). Because this case is closed and a reopening of this case is not appropriate, □□□ 14 | is apparent that [P]laintiff will not able to succeed on the merits of his claims.” Driver v. U.S. 15 | Special Master, No. 1:17-cv-00202-DAD-BAM-PC, 2020 WL 902271, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 16 | 2020). 17 For the aforementioned reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motions to Compel 18 | and Request for Judgment (ECF Nos. 54, 55, 56) with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is 19 | directed to terminate all pending motions. This case is closed and the Court will disregard future 20 | filings. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 | DATED: April 12, 2022 23 yy / 24 “ \/ Lu 25 a ZA N\ Troy L. Nunley } 26 United States District Judge 27 28