Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00712/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00712-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 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

Andrew B. Spain (Pro Se), 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The Eagleburger Law Group, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0712-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On November 7, 2006, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. #92)

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate the Court's dismissal order.

(Doc. #94) For the following reasons, the 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. Plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed without

prejudice, leaving him two options if he wished to pursue his case. Plaintiff could either

challenge the dismissal in a motion filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure or he could file a new action. Plaintiff chose to challenge the order

of dismissal by filing a motion to reopen his case. 

In his Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(4), requesting the

Court to vacate the dismissal order because it is void. Plaintiff argues that the judgment is

Case 2:06-cv-00712-ROS Document 96 Filed 11/29/06 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 -

void because this Court lacked jurisdiction, either personal or subject matter, over the case.

Despite citing a number of authorities that state that any judgment rendered by a court

without jurisdiction is void, Plaintiff does not explain how this Court lacks jurisdiction to

hear the present case. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate (Doc. #94) is DENIED.

 

DATED this 29th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00712-ROS Document 96 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 2