United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER DENYING POST-JUDGMENT
N. Parrish, United States District Court Judge.
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].
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
request for reinstatement and the 60(b) motion are considered
together under Rule 60(b).
relevant part, Rule 60(b) reads:
motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . .
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
(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
. . .
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. Civ. P. 60(b).
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)