Opinion
Civil No. 04-603 (ESH).
September 17, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has moved this Court to reconsider or modify its July 29, 2004 Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing his action for improper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Although the exact contours of the allegations in plaintiff's complaint are unclear, they relate to a legal action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. See United States v. Stephenson, 313 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (W.D. Wash. 2004) ("Washington action"). There, the government sought to prevent plaintiff from promoting abusive tax schemes. In case, plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the Washington action was a sham, and that the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington lacked any federal judicial authority. In its July 29, 2004 Memorandum Opinion and Order, this Court determined that venue in this Court was improper.
In the present motion, plaintiff reiterates his argument that the Western District of Washington is not a court with any vested federal judicial authority, and contends that this Court's July 29, 2004 Order leaves him without a "remedy in the courts of the United States to redress the wrongs complained of in Plaintiff's complaint." (Pl.'s Mot. at 2-3.) However, plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the result of proceedings before the Western District of Washington does not entitle him to venue here. Moreover, "plaintiff has brought to light no facts or circumstances of which the Court was not cognizant in rendering its decision" to dismiss for lack of venue, and "plaintiff's general displeasure with the Court's ruling does not form a basis from which a valid Rule 60(b) challenge can be made." Martin-Trigona v. Meister, Civ. No. 87-0425, 1987 WL 9518, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 1987). As a result, plaintiff's motion to vacate will be denied.
Plaintiff does not specify whether he seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), which allows a party to seek relief from the court's final judgment or order for, inter alia, "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; or under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), which permits a party to seek alteration or amendment of a judgment. Because plaintiff fails to specify under which rule he is proceeding, and because a Rule 59(e) motion would be untimely as plaintiff's motion was filed more than ten days after the Court's July 29, 2004 Order, the Court will treat plaintiff's motion as a Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider. See Easley v. Kirmsee, No. 03-1421, 2004 WL 1920796, at *3 n. 2 (7th Cir. Aug. 30, 2004); United States v. Pollard, 290 F. Supp. 2d 153, 156 (D.D.C. 2003).
Plaintiff's motion refers to an action "in the courts of Washington state" that was "removed . . . to a United States District Court, which determined that it did not have jurisdiction, and has failed to remand the action to the Washington court." (Pl.'s Mot. ¶ 6.) However, upon review of the docket, the Court has determined that this case was not removed from a state court, and thus, plaintiff's reference is irrelevant to this matter.
A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.