Opinion
No. CV 1-03-6925-MHM.
June 26, 2009
ORDER
I. Background
Plaintiff filed this action on December 24, 2003 (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff's original Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) (Doc. # 41). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 45). The First Amended Complaint was also dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) (Doc. # 48). Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was filed on May 7, 2007 (Doc. # 54). The Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint and this action on February 12, 2009 for failure to cure the deficiencies outlined in previous orders (Doc. # 62). On April 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Court will construe as a request for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (Doc. # 68).
II. Rule 60(b)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the court's order or belief that the court is wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for relief. See Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981).
Plaintiff alleges no newly discovered evidence, no mistake or surprise, and no fraud by the adverse party. Plaintiff does not provide any other reason justifying relief. The motion for reconsideration is not based on an intervening change in controlling law, nor does it offer any other legally cognizable basis justifying relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 68) is denied.