Coleman v. Dzurenda ( 2024 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 MISTER COLEMAN, Case No. 3:24-cv-00304-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 JAMES DZURENDA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 On October 24, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss 13 this action. (ECF Nos. 9, 10, 12). However, on November 21, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a 14 motion to terminate the motion withdrawing his complaint and requested to proceed with 15 this case. (ECF No. 13). In the motion, Plaintiff explains that another inmate, Marque 16 Gardeley, who had originally been helping Plaintiff with this case, filed the motion to 17 withdraw Plaintiff’s complaint because Plaintiff refused to give Gardeley money. (Id. at 2). 18 A party can seek reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 60(b). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 20 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 21 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 22 Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Under FRCP 23 60(b)(6), the court may relieve a party from final judgment, order, or proceeding for 24 several different reasons including “any other reason that justifies relief.” 25 The Court interprets Plaintiff’s motion as a Rule 60(b) motion to relieve him from a 26 final judgment. Based on Plaintiff’s motion, he did not file the motion to voluntarily 27 withdraw his case and would like to reopen his case. The Court notes that, although 28 Marque Gardeley did not sign his name as the person who helped Plaintiff prepare his 1 || complaint, Gardeley did provide his inmate number, NDOC #1099633. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2 || 28). The handwriting in the complaint is the same handwriting in the motions to voluntarily 3 || dismiss. (See ECF Nos. 1-1, 9, 10). Notably, the handwriting in the motion to terminate 4 || the motion to withdraw complaint is different from the other filings and appears to be in 5 || Plaintiff's own handwriting. 6 The Court grants Plaintiffs Rule 60(b) motion and reopens this case. It would be 7 || manifestly unjust to close a case based on a motion that Plaintiff neither authorized nor 8 || wrote. The Court reopens this case, puts the case in line for screening, and will issue a 9 || screening order on the complaint in due course. 10 It is therefore ordered that the motion to terminate motion to withdraw complaint 11 || (ECF No. 13) is granted. 12 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court reopen this case and reinstate the 13 || application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and motion for appointment of 14 || counsel (ECF No. 3) as active, pending motions. 15 DATED THIS 25" Day of November 2024. 17 MIRANDA M. DU 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 95