Opinion
CV 01-1090-PHX-MHM (SLV).
March 1, 2006
ORDER
Currently, before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Re-Transfer Custody of Plaintiff back to the District of Arizona Due to Malicious Venue, Retaliation and Injuries at Mississippi (Dkt.#32) and Motion to renew in forma pauperis status and Rule 60(b) relief of dismissals at Docket Numbers 27 and 28. (Dkt.#34). In reviewing the pleadings, the Court issues the following Order.
I. Procedural History
Plaintiff's initial complaint, based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983, was dismissed pursuant to the "three strikes provision" of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) on August 3, 2001. (Dkt.#2). Plaintiff filed a Motion for reconsideration which the Court denied on October 24, 2001. (Dkt.#9). Plaintiff then filed a Motion regarding transfer from Arizona (Dkt.#10) which was denied on March 29, 2002. (Dkt.#14). Plaintiff then filed a Notice of Appeal on March 26, 2002 which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on June 13, 2002. (Dkt.#19).
On July 6, 2004, Plaintiff filed another Motion for reconsideration based upon continuing retaliation. (Dkt.#23). On August 17, 2004, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Order based upon reconsideration issues ("Motion for Order"). (Dkt. #25). Again, on August 27, 2004, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Order based upon similar allegations in his original Motion for Order. (Dkt.#26). The Court summarily denied these latter motions. (Dkt.#28). Specifically, the Court noted that because judgment had already been entered in this case, the only relief available to Plaintiff was through the procedural devices of: (1) a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; or (2) a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). The Court noted the only potentially applicable bases for the Court to consider Plaintiff's Motions was under Rule 60(b) but rejected any such argument on the grounds that they were untimely if brought pursuant to: (1) mistake, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) fraud under Rule 60(b). The Court also explained that even if timely, Plaintiff's motion provided no basis for the Court to intervene. Rather, the Court stated that the proper course of action since Plaintiff's Complaint had already been dismissed would be to file a new action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 using a Court-approved form. (Dkt.#28).
II. Analysis
Rather than file a separate action as the Court has recommended, Plaintiff continues to challenge the Court's previous rulings dismissing this action before this Court. Specifically, again Plaintiff seeks this Court to intervene with respect to his Motion to Re-transfer custody back to Arizona. (Dkt#32). Moreover, Plaintiff renews his request for in forma pauperis status as well as again apparently seeks reconsideration under Rule 60(b) without offering any additional argument in support of doing so.
As stated in its previous order, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff's requests absent a proper Rule 60(b) motion that is based upon a void judgment; a satisfied or discharged judgment or extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief. See School District No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS, 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236, 114 S.Ct. 2472 (1994), (citations omitted). Here, the Plaintiff has asserted no such reasons. Obviously, a request for this Court to transfer Plaintiff back to Arizona and a motion regarding a renewed request for in forma pauperis status do not rise to the requisite level under Rule 60(b) for the Court to consider.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Re-transfer custody back to the District Court of Arizona is denied. (Dkt.#32).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to renew his in forma pauperis request and Rule 60(b) relief is denied. (Dkt.#34).