Opinion
3:09-CV-0030-LRH-RAM.
April 9, 2010
ORDER
Before the court is plaintiff John Henry Page's ("Page") motion to reconsider filed on March 1, 2010. Doc. #19.
Refers to the court's docket number.
Page is an inmate incarcerated at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center in Lovelock, Nevada. While incarcerated, Page accidentally received a 2008 economic stimulus rebate from the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") which was intended for another John H. Page residing in Nevada. The mistake was quickly fixed and the stimulus package was directed to the proper recipient.
Page subsequently filed suit in federal court alleging that he was entitled to the 2008 stimulus package and that his stimulus rebate should not have been redirected to another individual. On February 22, 2010, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss finding that Page, as an inmate, did not earn sufficient qualifying income during the tax year to qualify for the 2008 stimulus package. Doc. #17. Thereafter, Page filed the present motion to reconsider. Doc. #19.
Page brings his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides that a district court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order. Relief from judgment is appropriate upon a showing of mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or excusable neglect. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b); see also, Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2000).
Here, Page has not provided any justification within Rule 60(b) to warrant granting him relief. Page's motion is based on his personal belief that the order was unjust because he "notified the defendants over 13 times" requesting information about his 2008 stimulus package to which the defendants never responded thereby prompting Page to file a lawsuit. Although Page had to file a lawsuit in order to have the Internal Revenue Service respond to his requests for information, Page filed suit seeking relief that he is not entitled to, the 2008 stimulus package. The court's February 22, 2010 order dismissing Page's complaint was proper and without mistake or error.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. #19) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.