Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marchet v. Benzon

United States District Court, D. Utah

January 14, 2020

AZLEN ADIEU FARQUOIT MARCHET, Petitioner,
v.
LARRY BENZON, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER DENYING POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS

          Jill N. Parrish, United States District Court Judge.

         On April 15, 2019, this petition was dismissed as apparently duplicative of other petitions that had already been filed by Petitioner. [Docket 2]. The Court concluded that Petitioner could include his potential issues from this case when he amended other petitions in other cases. This was based upon the generic nature and one-page format of the petition filed here and Petitioner's statement that he had “filed a similar Petition 4 months ago.” [Docket 1].

         On April 24, 2019, Petitioner asked the Court to re-instate this case. [Docket 3]. He argued that he had filed the generic one-page petition as a place holder only and then had filed or would file an amended petition with more detail showing this case involves a wholly different situation than his other petitions and therefore should not have been dismissed. Another month later, he moved for appointed counsel. [Docket 10]. And on May 31, 2019, Petitioner moved for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). [Docket 11].

         RULE 60(b) MOTIONS

         The request for reinstatement and the 60(b) motion are considered together under Rule 60(b).

         In relevant part, Rule 60(b) reads:

         On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
. . .
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. Civ. P. 60(b).

         These motions are true Rule 60(b) motions. Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006) (stating under Tenth Circuit law that court must first determine “whether the motion is a true Rule 60(b) [or Rule 59(e)] motion[, ] or a second or successive petition”); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 538 (2005) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.