Case 3:07-cv-02388-DMS-POR
Document 52
Filed 08/18/2008
Page 1 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 vs. 13 [Docket Nos. 45, 51] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1On June 24, 2008, this Court issued an Order granting the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has since filed the present motion to set aside that Order. The Federal Defendants have filed an opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff has filed a reply. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that a court may relieve a party from a judgment or final order 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 (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; PAULA PATSON, et al., Defendants. MICHAEL FOX, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 07cv2388 DMS (POR) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
07cv2388
Case 3:07-cv-02388-DMS-POR
Document 52
Filed 08/18/2008
Page 2 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(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 relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Here, Plaintiff seeks relief from the order dismissing his case because he believes it is incorrect and mistaken. However, he fails to explain how the order is incorrect, or what mistakes were made. This is insufficient to warrant relief from the order of dismissal. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to set aside the June 24, 2008 order dismissing his case. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 18, 2008
HON. DANA M. SABRAW United States District Judge
-2-
07cv2388