Opinion
24-cv-00305-DKW-WRP
10-21-2024
CHARLES FREDRICK ROBERTS III, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DALLAS, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing.
Derrick K Watson Chief United States District Judge
On July 26, 2024, the Court dismissed this case without prejudice for improper venue. Dkt. No. 4. Fifty-two days later, on September 16, 2024, Plaintiff Charles Roberts filed a motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 6), which the Court liberally construes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See LR 60.1; Sierra Club, Haw. Chapter v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 486 F.Supp.2d 1185, 1188 (D. Haw. 2007).
When a motion for reconsideration is filed more than 28 days after the entry of judgment, the Court considers it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See McAllister v. Pepper, 2020 WL 13574305, at *1 (D. Haw. Feb. 13, 2020); Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) & 60(b).
Pursuant to Rule 60(b), the Court may grant relief from a final judgment or order upon a showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction, release, or discharge of the judgment; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). Although such motions are generally disfavored, see LR 60.1, “[w]hether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).
Here, the motion for reconsideration does not identify the specific ground on which it is brought. Nevertheless, liberally construed, Roberts appears to claim that the Court made a mistake in dismissing his case for improper venue when “[t]he Federal Kidnaping [sic] Act would not allow for case No. 24-CV-00305-DKW-WRP to be dismissed . . . as the violations stated [i]n the complaint in this case placed in by me are still ongoing.” Dkt. No. 6 at 1. The Federal Kidnapping Act, however, is a criminal statute which provides for nothing of the sort. See generally 18 U.S.C. § 1201. Among other things, criminal cases, just like civil ones, may be dismissed for improper venue. Moreover and more importantly, Roberts' arguments do not address the fundamental venue issues in this case- namely, that the City of Dallas is not resident in Hawai‘i, that the underlying events principally occurred outside of this District, and that there is an alternate venue in which this case could have been properly brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Dkt. No. 4 at 3-6; Dkt. No. 1 at 2, 4-6. As such, because Roberts has not identified any mistake in the Court's venue analysis, the motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 6, is DENIED.
Roberts notes that he “do[es] not [] knowledgably have a safe way to see how to follow any federal rules that attach to this [motion] or knowledge of what to title this motion at this time.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Because he is pro se, however, the Court will liberally construe his filings. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
In addition, although somewhat unclear, to the extent that Roberts believes that his case was dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) and Local Rule 11.1 for failure to follow court procedures, he is incorrect. See Dkt. No. 6 at 1. This case was dismissed pursuant to the Court's mandate to screen cases brought in forma pauperis and dismiss those for which venue does not lie. See Dkt. No. 4 at 3-6; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); Ruhe v. Krall, 2023 WL 3098330, at *3 (D. Haw. Apr. 26, 2023).
Indeed, as the Court explained to Roberts, the dismissal of his case without prejudice permits him to refile and pursue his claims in the proper federal venue-the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas-should he so choose. See Dkt. No. 4 at 6.
IT IS SO ORDERED.