Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00628/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00628-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:427 Social Security Benefits

---

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

David Lionel Fowler, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Social Security Administration; Social

Security Administration Office of

Hearings and Appeals, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-628-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff filed his “Motion for Emergency Appeal” (Doc. 15) on June 19, 2012. The

Court construes this as a Motion for Reconsideration, and now rules on the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff David Lionel Fowler filed a Complaint on March 23, 2012. (Doc. 1). In that

Complaint, Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendants improperly denied him social security

benefits. He also appears to allege that Berrien County Probate Court (mentioned but not

named in the Complaint) improperly concealed records of his adoption.

This Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on March 27, 2012, and ordered

Plaintiff to return documents necessary for service to the Clerk’s office within 30 days. (Doc.

6). When Plaintiff failed to comply, the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear before the Court

to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. (Doc. 9). The Court dismissed the case

when Plaintiff did not attend the hearing, scheduled for May 21, 2012. (Doc. 11). Plaintiff

Case 2:12-cv-00628-JAT Document 18 Filed 07/10/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

now argues that difficult living circumstances led to problems with receiving mail, and that

this warrants reconsideration of dismissal. (Doc. 15).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Although Plaintiff did not indicate which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governed

his Motion, a motion for reconsideration is appropriately brought under either Rule 59(e) or

Rule 60(b). Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991). If a motion for

reconsideration is filed more than twenty-eight days after judgment, it will be construed as

a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment or order. See Coyaso v. Bradley Pac.

Aviation, Inc., CIV. 11-00267 JMS, 2012 WL 1883718 (D. Haw. May 21, 2012); citing Am.

Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001) (same

rule under the pre-amendment ten day limit). The Court may grant a 60(b) motion for the

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct of the adverse party;

(4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied, released or discharged judgment, or (6) “extraordinary

circumstances” which would justify relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); see Fuller, 950 F.2d at

1442 (citing Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989)).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s argument that his circumstances justify reconsideration could conceivably

fall only under the first or sixth reasons. If Plaintiff’s neglect in failing to comply with the

Court’s Order was excusable, reconsideration is appropriate. “[T]he determination of whether

neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger

of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the

proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.”

Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff does not

present any evidence relevant to the four factors. Cf. id. at 1224 (failure to discuss any of the

factors could be grounds for denial of relief). Moreover, balancing the equities, relief would

be inappropriate given Plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

Relief under the sixth reason requires a finding of “extraordinary circumstances.”

Case 2:12-cv-00628-JAT Document 18 Filed 07/10/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

McConnell v. MEBA Med. & Benefits Plan, 759 F.2d 1401, 1407 (9th Cir. 1985). This case

is not one of extraordinary circumstances and, accordingly, the Court will not reconsider its

prior Order.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 15).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because this case is closed, all other pending

motions (including Doc. 17) are denied as moot.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00628-JAT Document 18 Filed 07/10/12 Page 3 of 3