Luesse v. Rivera et al, No. 2:2020cv00232 - Document 14 (D. Utah 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION And Order: IT IS ORDERED that--in the Court's discretion--Plaintiff's post-judgment 11 motion and 12 motion to file an amended complaint are DENIED. This action remains closed. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 12/27/2022. (jl)

Download PDF
Luesse v. Rivera et al Doc. 14 Case 2:20-cv-00232-TS Document 14 Filed 12/27/22 PageID.89 Page 1 of 2 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH MICHAEL LUESSE, Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT Case No. 2:20-CV-232 TS ROSIE RIVERA et al., District Judge Ted Stewart Defendants. On June 16, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to within thirty days show cause why his case should not be dismissed because he did not comply with the Court's earlier Order to submit a certified six-month inmate statement. (ECF No. 9.) Three months later, when Plaintiff did not respond to the Order to Show Cause, the Court dismissed this case. (Id.) Nearly two years after dismissal, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the dismissal. (ECF No. 11.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) states in relevant part, “On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Plaintiff appears to rely on his own excusable neglect as the basis for relief from judgment here. However, Plaintiff's motion did not at all address the reason why the action was dismissed, which was the failure to file the required inmate-account statement. Neither did Plaintiff fully and specifically address the lengthy time gap and why there was never a window of time in two years in which he could have pursued this dismissed case. Nor did Plaintiff acknowledge that his action was dismissed without prejudice and--based on the applicable statute of limitation--may be eligible for refiling in a new Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00232-TS Document 14 Filed 12/27/22 PageID.90 Page 2 of 2 case. Plaintiff is apparently operating now as a released prisoner, which would make some procedural aspects of refiling different from how this closed case proceeded--lending itself to refiling in a new case without the constraints of starting out as a prisoner-plaintiff. Based on the above, IT IS ORDERED that--in the Court's discretion--Plaintiff’s postjudgment motion and motion to file an amended complaint are DENIED. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) This action remains closed. DATED this 27th day of December, 2022. BY THE COURT: JUDGE TED STEWART United States District Court 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.