Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00308/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00308-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) 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

B. Spain, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 07-0308-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

EMC Mortgage Company, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

Currently pending before the court is “B. Spain’s F.R.Civ.P. r

59(a)(1)(B) motion for a new trial in response to Robert C.

Broomfield’s September 27th 2010 order enjoining B. Spain from

filing in ‘this court’ and denial of a Motion for a Pretrial

Scheduling Conference/Notice to the Chief Judge of the District

Arizona of unprofessional conduct in re Robert C. Broomfield’s

mishandling of the proceedings in this instant case[]” (Doc. 278). 

On September 27, 2010, this court issued a pre-filing order

finding that plaintiff pro se Spain “has engaged in vexatious

litigation in the present action.” Spain v. EMC Mortgage Co., 2010

WL 3940987, at *13 (D.Ariz. Sept. 27, 2010) (Doc. 277). Hence, 

Case 2:07-cv-00308-RCB Document 279 Filed 10/22/10 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 -

among other things, this court directed that “because this action

is closed, no further pleadings or motions are allowed herein[.]”

Id. The court also prohibited plaintiff from filing any other

actions in this District Court "pertaining to the underlying real

property transaction, i.e., the Alpine property, which is the

subject of this lawsuit, without complying with the following

procedure." Id. The court then outlined a procedure whereby

plaintiff shall lodge a proposed complaint for this court's review

before he can proceed with such further actions in this court. See

id. 

Despite the foregoing, on October 18, 2010, pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(B), plaintiff Spain filed a motion for a new

trial (Doc. 278). Because that motion was inadvertently filed in

contravention of this court’s pre-filing order, the court hereby

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to rescind the filing of that motion

(Doc. 278), and deem it to have been lodged with the court on

. . . 

Case 2:07-cv-00308-RCB Document 279 Filed 10/22/10 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

1 Reviewing this lodged motion, there are two glaring procedural

irregularities. First of all, plaintiff expressly indicated that he is seeking a

new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff never had a trial

though, as ultimately the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. Obviously

then, plaintiff’s reliance upon that particular Rule is wholly misplaced. 

Giving plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, once again, perhaps he intended

to rely upon subsection (e) of Rule 59. That Rule governs motions to alter or

amend judgments. If so, that reliance would be misplaced as well because the

September 27, 2010, pre-filing order was not a judgment. Judgment was entered in

this case on February 24, 2009. Doc. 252. So, if plaintiff actually intended this

to be a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), this

motion is untimely, as it was not made within 28 days after entry of the judgment.

In any event, it seems unlikely that plaintiff intended the present motion to be

construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment, as he previously timely filed

such a motion (Doc. 253) after entry of the February 24, 2009 judgment; and the

court denied that motion. Doc. 267. 

- 3 -

October 18, 2010.1 Defendants need not respond to that lodged

motion. 

IT IS ORDERED.

DATED this 21st day of October, 2010.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:07-cv-00308-RCB Document 279 Filed 10/22/10 Page 3 of 3