Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02371/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02371-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 462
Nature of Suit: Naturalization, Petition For Hearing of Denial
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Serajul Haque,

Petitioner, 

v. 

United States Attorney General, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-11-02371-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 

 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case. (Doc. 54). The Court 

now rules on the motion. 

 Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its May, 2012 Order dismissing the 

case and transfer the case to another venue. In support of this request, Plaintiff offers an 

order from another case he has filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia 

which transferred the case to the Northern District of California. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 governs when a district court may reconsider a 

final judgment. The rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or 

judgment on various grounds, including 1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect; 2) newly discovered evidence; 3) fraud or misconduct by an opposing party; or 

4) any other reason that justifies relief from the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The 

motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, and with respect to 

the first three grounds, no more than a year after the entry of the judgment, order, or 

Case 2:11-cv-02371-JAT Document 58 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

proceeding. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c). 

 Here, Plaintiff’s case has been closed for nearly three years, Plaintiff’s motions to 

reopen the case have repeatedly been denied, and this Court’s decisions have been 

affirmed by the Ninth Circuit twice. Plaintiff makes no argument that there has been any 

mistake, surprise, neglect, or misconduct, or that any new evidence has been discovered 

that may justify reopening the case. In other words, Plaintiff offers no reason why this 

case should be reopened except that another court has transferred one of his cases to the 

Northern District of California. This is not a reason to reopen a case that has rightfully 

been dismissed for failure to serve the defendants and failure to state a claim. Indeed, the 

D.C. District Court case mentions nothing about service or Plaintiff’s claims at all. 

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case. 

 Because the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case, the case remains 

closed and all other pending motions are denied as moot. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case, (Doc. 54), is 

DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot. 

 Dated this 3rd day of February, 2015. 

Case 2:11-cv-02371-JAT Document 58 Filed 02/03/15 Page 2 of 2