Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02586/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02586-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

Gary Greenburg, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Roberts Properties, L.P., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2586-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Gary Greenburg's Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. #76). The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the action for failure to state

a claim and as a sanction for Plaintiff's fraud on the Court (Doc. #74). Judge Bolton issued

a decision in a related matter finding Plaintiff had forged his signature on certain construction

alteration documents and had submitted those documents to the court. Judge Bolton also

found that Plaintiff had tampered with the documents after checking them out of the court's

file. Because all the causes of action in the case before this Court depended on the validity

of the signatures, the Court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court also dismissed

the claim as a sanction for Plaintiff's continued fraud on the court. 

Plaintiff asks this Court to reconsider its Order dismissing the action. In support,

Plaintiff states that he has appealed Judge Bolton's ruling in the related case. He contends

the dismissal in this case is premature and prejudicial because it relies on Judge Bolton's

order and he believes the Ninth Circuit will overturn that order. Judgement issued in this

Case 2:05-cv-02586-JAT Document 77 Filed 06/01/07 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 -

case on September 11, 2006 (Doc. #75). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(c) and 60(b)

provide grounds for relief from judgments. Plaintiff has not articulated any of the available

grounds, e.g., good cause, mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, new evidence, or fraud,

for relief from Judgment. The Court therefore denies his request for reconsideration.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #76).

DATED this 1st day of June, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02586-JAT Document 77 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 2