Opinion
2:21-cv-00414-KJM-DB
07-21-2023
Orlonzo Hedrington, Plaintiff, v. County of Solano, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Hedrington has filed a motion to reopen this action, which is difficult to decipher. ECF No. 65. Much of plaintiff's motion seems to make conclusory allegations that this court, as well as a second judge and an attorney, conspired to stop plaintiff from receiving relief. See generally id. But this court correctly dismissed certain defendants, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and remanded the action to state court in its prior order. Prior Order (December 15, 2021), ECF No. 41. Additionally, the court denied three of plaintiff's prior motions for reconsideration. ECF No. 49.
While a court may relieve a party from an order under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “mistake, inadvertence, fraud, or excusable neglect” or for “any other reason that justifies relief,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), (b)(6), plaintiff has provided no legitimate justification to reopen this case and does not point to any new evidence or law supporting his argument. Thus, the court denies the motion. See generally Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (enumerating grounds for relief from judgment)
This order resolves ECF No. 65.
IT IS SO ORDERED.