Opinion
No. CV 06-0374-PHX-ROS.
December 4, 2006
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate (Doc. #28). For the following reasons, his motion will be denied.
A pro se litigant "must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants." King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.3d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). The Court has already entered a judgment of dismissal of Plaintiff's action, denied his motion for reconsideration, and denied his motion for relief from judgment. Plaintiff then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which denied his petition for mandamus. The Ninth Circuit stated that "[n]o motions for reconsideration, modification, or clarification of this order shall be filed or entertained."
Plaintiff now files this Motion to Vacate under Rule 60(b) arguing "mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, and fraud upon the court." The Court has already ruled on Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion, finding his claims meritless. The Court will not entertain another Rule 60(b) motion based upon these same claims.
The Court will not sanction Plaintiff at this time but warns Plaintiff that no further motions shall be filed. The Court has already entertained Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and the Ninth Circuit has denied his appeal. This case is closed. Sanctions will be imposed if Plaintiff files any additional motions.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 28) is DENIED.