Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00449/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00449-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Injunction

---

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

Connie R. ZAKRAJSEK, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Susan ARMSTRONG, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-04-0449-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Connie R. Zakrajsek's Motion to Vacate Order of

Court Dated January 16, 2006. (Dkt. 52)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 60(b) permits reconsideration of a district court order based on: (1) mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly-discovered evidence which by due

diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59; (3)

fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based

has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should

have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the

judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(b)(6). Rule 60 reconsideration is generally appropriate

in three instances: (1) when there has been an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new

evidence has come to light; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest

injustice. School District No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993).

Case 2:04-cv-00449-SMM Document 53 Filed 03/26/07 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 -

A Rule 60(b) motion must be brought within a "reasonable" time, which cannot be more

than one year if the motion is based on mistake, newly-discovered evidence, or fraud. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff states that this Court "is grossly mistaken in it's judgment and decision and in

reliance upon the false statements of the Defendants and their attorneys, purposefully made to

mislead this court." However, apart from this conclusory statement, Plaintiff offers nothing to

support her claim. Plaintiff did indicate that she would file a Memorandum of Points and

Authorities on or before January 19, 2007; however, the Court has received nothing from

Plaintiff to date. Because Plaintiff has provided no basis for her claims, the Court will deny the

motion.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order of Court Dated

January 16, 2006 (Dkt. 52) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 26th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-00449-SMM Document 53 Filed 03/26/07 Page 2 of 2