Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00876/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00876-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kirk Marshall Clayton,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Avondale Elementary School District #44,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-876-PHX-FJM

ORDER

In our Order dated May 19, 2006, we granted defendant's motion for summary

judgment, denied plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment, denied as moot defendant's

motion to strike the motion for declaratory judgment, and denied as moot defendant's motion

for summary adjudication of its motion for summary judgment (doc. 26). We now have

before us a document entitled "Plaintiff's Request Motion of Denial of Defendant's Motion

to Strike" (doc. 29). This appears to be either a belated response to defendant's motion to

strike or a belated motion to strike defendant's motion to strike. At either event, it is moot

because we denied defendant's motion to strike. It could also be interpreted as a motion for

reconsideration of our order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. In that

event, it is denied because it sets forth no reason to reconsider our decision.

We also have before us a document entitled "Plaintiff's Request for Relief of

Order/Judgement" (doc. 28). This is an objection to defendant's bill of costs and will be

considered by the Clerk of Court when assessing costs pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1), Fed. R.

Case 2:05-cv-00876-FJM Document 31 Filed 06/06/06 Page 1 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

- 2 -

Civ. P., and LRCiv 54.1. It is also a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ.

P., and is denied because it sets forth no reason for relief; it merely asserts that we should not

assess costs because plaintiff filed for bankruptcy. It is also a motion for relief pursuant to

Rule 55(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., and is denied because there was no entry of default and therefore

Rule 55(c) is inapplicable.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motions (docs. 28 and 29).

DATED this 5th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00876-FJM Document 31 Filed 06/06/06 Page 2 of 2