Opinion
2:18-cv-02351-TLN-DB
04-12-2022
GONZALO R. RUBANG, JR., Plaintiff, v. ERIC R. BROOKS, et al, Defendants.
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Gonzalo R. Rubang, Jr.'s (“Plaintiff”) Motions to Compel (ECF Nos. 54, 55) and Request for Judgment (ECF No. 56). On February 7, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations herein recommending dismissing Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint without prejudice and closing this case. (ECF No. 34.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 35) and subsequently filed a fifth amended complaint (ECF No. 36). On March 24, 2020, this Court adopted the findings and recommendations after reviewing Plaintiff's filings and entered judgment closing the case. (ECF Nos. 40, 41.) Plaintiff subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which in turn affirmed this Court's decision. (ECF Nos. 42, 46.)
On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion to Compel” (ECF No. 50), followed by a “Motion to Stay” (ECF No. 52). Plaintiff requested the Court require Defendants to produce Plaintiff's mortgage documents and to stay the case to “lead to more discoveries of valuable [information].” (ECF No. 52 at 1; ECF No. 50). The Court determined that the case is closed, and in the event Plaintiff was seeking reconsideration, reconsideration was not warranted. (ECF No. 53.)
Plaintiff has since filed two additional motions to compel mortgage documents. (ECF Nos. 54, 55.) Plaintiff also filed a document titled “Request for Judgment.” (ECF No. 56.) Again, this case is closed. In the event Plaintiff is asking the Court to reconsider its prior order, reconsideration is not warranted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e); 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (Pursuant to “Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”). Because this case is closed and a reopening of this case is not appropriate, “it is apparent that [P]laintiff will not able to succeed on the merits of his claims.” Driver v. U.S. Special Master, No. 1:17-cv-00202-DAD-BAM-PC, 2020 WL 902271, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020).
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motions to Compel and Request for Judgment (ECF Nos. 54, 55, 56) with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions. This case is closed and the Court will disregard future filings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.