Opinion
21-CV-1265-CAB-MSB
10-13-2021
DEAN ALLEN STEEVES, Plaintiff, v. DOROTHY NELSON, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT [DOC. NO. 9]
Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge
On September 23, 2021, the Court dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, noting that Plaintiff's motion/complaint is frivolous and that Plaintiff had not satisfied his burden to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his “motion to compel.” Plaintiff now moves to vacate that dismissal. The motion is denied.
In his motion, Plaintiff argues the merits of his position with respect to income taxes he allegedly owes. The merits of his underlying claim, however, are irrelevant to whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear his dispute. Neither the motion/complaint [Doc. No. 1], Plaintiff's response to the Court's order to show cause [Doc. No. 6], nor the instant motion provide any basis for this Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. Further, the instant motion provides no basis for reconsideration of its dismissal order under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). See generally Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (listing the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b)). Accordingly, the motion to vacate is DENIED, and this case remains CLOSED. Any further filings in this case will be rejected by the Court.
It is SO ORDERED.