Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00374/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00374-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Kirk & Susan Whitcombe, Husband and

Wife, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Larry Henak and Susan Henak, Husband

and Wife, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0374-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate (Doc. #28). For the following

reasons, his motion will be denied.

A pro se litigant “must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.3d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). The Court has already entered a judgment

of dismissal of Plaintiff's action, denied his motion for reconsideration, and denied his motion

for relief from judgment. Plaintiff then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which denied his

petition for mandamus. The Ninth Circuit stated that "[n]o motions for reconsideration,

modification, or clarification of this order shall be filed or entertained."

Plaintiff now files this Motion to Vacate under Rule 60(b) arguing "mistake,

inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, and fraud upon the court." The

Court has already ruled on Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion, finding his claims meritless. The

Case 2:06-cv-00374-ROS Document 30 Filed 12/04/06 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 -

Court will not entertain another Rule 60(b) motion based upon these same claims. 

The Court will not sanction Plaintiff at this time but warns Plaintiff that no further

motions shall be filed. The Court has already entertained Plaintiff's motion for

reconsideration and the Ninth Circuit has denied his appeal. This case is closed. Sanctions

will be imposed if Plaintiff files any additional motions.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 28) is DENIED.

DATED this 4th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00374-ROS Document 30 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 2