Dillard v. Lovell ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 JAMES H. DILLARD, II, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:23-cv-01296-GMN-NJK 5 vs. ) ) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 6 DAMON LOVELL, et al., ) REINSTATE COMPLAINT 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff James H. Dillard’s Motion to Reinstate Complaint, 11 (ECF No. 15), which the Court liberally construes as a motion for reconsideration. The Court 12 has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion, as well as his prior miscellaneous filings, (ECF Nos. 11, 12, 13 14), and finds that reopening this closed case is not warranted. Accordingly, the Court 14 DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Complaint and DENIES his miscellaneous filings as 15 moot. 16 The Court dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after ordering 17 Plaintiff to show cause how his case presented a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 18 met the requirements of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Order Dismissing Case 19 Without Prejudice, ECF No. 10). Plaintiff then filed his Motion to Reinstate Complaint, 20 acknowledging the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction based on his Complaint, (ECF 21 No. 1-1), but advancing that the Court now has federal question jurisdiction under his Amended 22 Complaint,1 (ECF No. 16), because he alleges a claim for copyright infringement pursuant to 23 24 25 1 The Court did not give Plaintiff leave to file his Amended Complaint. (See generally Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice). 1 17 U.S.C. § 501. (Mot. Reinstate Complaint at 2). So, Plaintiff requests the Court reopen his 2 case and allow it “to proceed to the next appropriate stage.” (Id.). 3 Although not mentioned in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, motions for 4 reconsideration may be brought under Rules 59 and 60. Rule 59(e) provides that any motion to 5 alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment. The 6 Ninth Circuit has held that a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration should not be granted 7 “absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 8 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 9 controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 10 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 11 1999)). 12 Under Rule 60(b), a court may, upon motion and just terms, “relieve a party . . . from a 13 final judgment,” on the ground that the “judgment is void[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). A 14 judgment is “void only if the court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject 15 matter, or of the parties, or if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.” 16 In re Ctr. Wholesale, Inc., 759 F.2d 1440, 1448 (9th Cir. 1985). Additionally, under Rule 17 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding only in the 18 following circumstances: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 19 discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or 20 (6) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. Stewart v. Dupnik, 243 F.3d 549, 549 21 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 60(b) relief should only be granted under “extraordinary circumstances.” 22 Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 777 (2017). 23 Plaintiff does not contend the Court erred in its reasoning. So rather than reconsider the 24 substance of its Order, he requests the Court reconsider its solution, the dismissal without 25 prejudice and closing of his case. However, dismissal without prejudice was appropriate 1 || because the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit. “Without jurisdiction the 2 || court cannot proceed at all in any case. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it 3 || ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and 4 || dismissing the cause.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) 5 (quoting Ex Parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1868)). 6 The Court notes that Plaintiff's case was dismissed without prejudice. “As such, 7 || Plaintiff's case does not need to be reopened. Plaintiff can file new lawsuits raising the 8 || allegations in his [Amended] Complaint... .” Simpson v. Pierce Cnty. Jail, No. 3:17-cv- 9 1105466, 2018 WL 4566059, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 24, 2018) (citing Powell v. Smith, No. 10 || 1:08-cv-1443, 2011 WL 4527412, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2011)) (denying a prisoner 11 || plaintiff's motion to reopen under Rule 60 and noting the plaintiff did not need to reopen his 12 || case and could simply re-file the complaint because the case had been dismissed without 13 || prejudice). 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate Complaint, (ECF No. 16 || 15), is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's prior Motions, (ECF Nos. 11, 17 || 12, 14), are DENIED as moot. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may not file any more documents in this 19 closed case. If Plaintiff seeks to initiate a new lawsuit, he may submit to the Clerk of the Court 20 |}a new complaint and either an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 21 || filing fee for a civil action. 22 DATED this 10 day of June, 2024. 23 Vf, 24 iy AL 45 Cra avarro, District Judge UNIT TATES DISTRICT COURT Page 3 of 3