Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01887/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01887-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 

Victor O. Dema, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona Department of Economic Security, 

et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01887-PHX-JZB

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Victor O. Dema’s Motions to Reinstate 

Dismissed Action and to Stay Proceeding. (Doc. 9.) As detailed below, the Court will 

deny Plaintiff’s Motions. 

I. Background 

On August 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed his 233-page Complaint in this action. (Doc. 

1.) After granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the Court dismissed 

Plaintiff’s Complaint for failing to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. (Doc. 7.) In its Order, the Court allowed Plaintiff until December 10, 2014 to 

file an amended complaint and instructed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment 

dismissing the action if Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline. 

Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the December 10, 2014 deadline. 

Accordingly, the Clerk terminated this action on December 11, 2014. 

On December 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed his pending Motions to Reinstate Dismissed 

Action and to Stay Proceeding. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff requests the Court reinstate and stay 

Case 2:14-cv-01887-JZB Document 10 Filed 01/06/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

the dismissed action because the “[C]ourt in its last order to amend complaint 

erroneously conceived that Plaintiff/Father was involved in state court ‘termination 

proceeding[s].’” (Doc. 9 at 1.) Plaintiff further asserts that “there is the likelihood of the 

Plaintiff’s reunification following their six years separation by above defendants which 

may require major Amendment of their complaint in order to conform to ongoing 

changes in new facts and circumstances, such as voluntary dismissal of section 1983 

injunctive and prospective relief claim.” (Id.) 

II. Analysis 

 The Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion “to Reinstate Dismissed Action” as a 

Motion filed pursuant to either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. See Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1441-42 (9th Cir. 1991). The 

Court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration filed under Rule 59(e) 

or Rule 60(b). School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Reconsideration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) “if the district 

court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the 

initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 

controlling law.” Id. at 1263. Under Rule 60(b): 

the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, 

or proceeding 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; 

(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). 

Case 2:14-cv-01887-JZB Document 10 Filed 01/06/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

 Here, Plaintiff fails to provide any basis for relief under Rule 59(e) or 60(b). 

Although Plaintiff asserts that there are “new circumstances” in his case—that he may be 

reunited with his child—such circumstances, even if true, do not excuse his previous 

failure to state a claim for relief under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Further, the Court dismissed this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended 

complaint by the December 10, 2014 deadline. In his pending Motion, Plaintiff fails to 

provide any justification for his failure to file an amended complaint other than his 

speculation that “new circumstances” may require amendment at some future time, 

including dismissal of Plaintiff’s 1983 claim for injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Court 

will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Dismissed Action. The Court will also deny 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Action as moot. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Reinstate Action and to Stay Action 

(Doc. 9) are denied. 

 Dated this 6th day of January, 2015. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01887-JZB Document 10 Filed 01/06/15 Page 3 of 3