Ziankovich v. Large

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT.

          CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from the Final Judgment and for Reconsideration of the Final Judgment. (Doc. # 25.) Because Plaintiff does not establish exception circumstances that warrant vacating the Court's Order and Final Judgment (Doc. ## 23, 24) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Plaintiff's Motion for Relief and Reconsideration is denied.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The Court's previous Order Affirming and Adopting the October 5, 2017 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang (Doc. # 23) and the underlying Recommendation (Doc. # 21) provide detailed recitations of the factual and procedural background of this dispute and are incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Accordingly, this Order will reiterate only what is necessary to address Plaintiff's Motion for Relief and Reconsideration. On October 31, 2017, the Court issued its Order Affirming and Adopting the October 5, 2017 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang and ordered that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. # 12) was dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. # 23 at 10.) The Court concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. (Id. at 6-9.) Accordingly, the Court was required to dismiss Plaintiff's case against Defendants. (Id. at 9.) The Court's Order terminated the case, and the Clerk of the Court entered Final Judgment against Plaintiff.^[1] (Doc. # 24.)

         Again proceeding pro se, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Relief and Reconsideration pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) on November 3, 2017. (Doc. # 25.) Plaintiff briefly asserts that relief is warranted because the Court “missed the fact that there are federal statutes, which make applicability of [Sperry v. State of Fla. Ex rel. Fla. Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963)] binding for this matter.” (Id. at 4.) Defendants timely responded on November 22, 2017 and argue that Plaintiff's Motion for Relief and Reconsideration is “defective on both procedural and substantive grounds, requiring denial.” (Doc. # 27.) Plaintiff replied on November 22, 2017, briefly clarifying his argument in light of Defendants' response brief. (Doc. # 28.)

         II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR RULE 60(B) RELIEF

         Plaintiff moves for relief from the Court's Order pursuant to Rule 60(b).^[2] (Doc. # 25 at 1.) Relief under Rule 60(b) “is extraordinary and may only be granted in exceptional circumstances.” Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Co., Inc., 909 F.2d 1437, 1440 (10th Cir. 1990). A litigant shows exceptional circumstances by satisfying one or more of Rule 60(b)'s six grounds for relief from judgment. Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243-44. These six grounds are:

(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 (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies ...