Allah v. Spanner

1 EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON Mar 10, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ALLAH©, SP/C, 5% NATION OF No. 4:21-cv-05130-SMJ ISLAM, Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING RULE 60(b) 6 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM v. JUDGMENT AND PETITION FOR 7 AN EMERGENCY WRIT OF BRUCE A. SPANNER, TEDDY HABEAS CORPUS CHOW, MELISA FARIS, RUBY A.

OCHOA, PEYMAN YOUNESI, DONALD R. HOLBROOK GENIE RANDOLPH, MELANIE PERKINS, THOMAS O. RICE, STANLEY A.

BASTIAN, MARSHA J. PECHMAN, CHERYL STRANGE, and ALL JOHN AND JANE DOES NOT YET MENTIONED, 13 Defendants.

15 By Order filed December 3, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed this case for failure to comply with the filing fee requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1914. On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document titled, “F.R.C.P. Rule 60(b) Relief From Judgment Or Order, Bar Order Is A Fraud And Deceitfully Done By Marsha J. Peckman, Washington State Patrol Have No Record Of Convictions.” ECF No. 27.

1 In his Motion, Plaintiff states, “Allah©, Aggrieved Party, moves this court with F.R.C.P. Rule 60(b) Relief From Judgment or Order, Bar Order is Fraud and Deceitfully Done by Marsha J. Peckman, et al., who put another man’s name in the Bar Order, knowing Allah has never Filed any document with the name ‘I Power Allah’, which Marsha J. Pechman, et al, in the Western District Seattle knew, Allah© is being Falsely Barred and the Washington State Patrol has no Record of a conviction disposition pursuant to Superior Court Admin. Rule I. Report of Disposition, matter of Fact according to the Public Disclosure Allah© has no criminal history.” ECF No. 27 at 1 (as written in original).

10 The Honorable Marsha J. Peckman did not preside over this case. To the extent Plaintiff is challenging this Court’s finding that he was precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis, ECF No. 24 at 2–4, he neither appealed the dismissal of this action, nor refuted the Court’s finding that he filed three or more actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See ECF No. 19 at 2–3.

16 A motion for reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A district court may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Smith v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d 3 at 1263). “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263.

5 Plaintiff has not presented newly discovered evidence, demonstrated that the Court committed clear error, or shown that the Order dismissing this action was manifestly unjust. There has also been no intervening change in controlling law, and Plaintiff pleads no other circumstances warranting reconsideration. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 27 is denied.

11 On February 25, 2022, Plaintiff submitted another document captioned, “Petition For An Emergency Writ of Habeas Corpus, Request For Bond Hearing, Washington State Patrol Have No Record of Conviction(s) From King County Or Franklin County,” ECF No. 28. On March 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document captioned, “Allah© Demands The Defendant’s To Cease And Desist Collections Activities Prior To Validation Of Purported Debt, Pursuant To Fair Debt Collections Practices Act 15 USC § 1601, 1692 et sez., And To Prove Convictions Through The Washington State Patrol Records Or Release Allah© And Return All Money Taken,” and naming several different Defendants. The Court finds Plaintiff’s submissions warrant no further consideration by the Court and denies them as moot.

2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 27, 4 is DENIED.

5 2. Plaintiffs Petition For An Emergency Writ of Habeas Corpus, Request 6 for Bond Hearing, ECF No. 28, is DENIED AS MOOT.

7 3. Plaintiff's “Demand,” ECF No. 29, is DENIED AS MOOT.

8 4. The file shall REMAIN closed. The Court shall entertain no further 9 documents in this case, other than a notice of appeal of the Court’s 10 ruling regarding the Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment, and 11 the Clerk’s Office shall note no further motions or petitions for hearing 12 in this case.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and || provide a copy to pro se Plaintiff.

15 DATED this 10 day of March 2022.

16 oe SALVADOR MENDOZA\ JR. 17 United States District Judge ORDER DENYING RULE 60(b) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND