1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE, Case No. 18-cv-01235-PJH 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION

10 JAMES MCMANIS, et al., TO VACATE 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 90, 91 12

13 14 Before the court are two motions filed by plaintiff: (1) a motion seeking “relief from 15 dismissal,” filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and/or Rule 16 60(b)(3), and (2) a “motion to vacate,” filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4), 17 and/or (b)(6). See Dkt. 90, 91. The matters are suitable for decision without oral 18 argument. 19 On October 31, 2018, this court entered judgment and terminated this case. Dkt. 20 59. On the same date, the court entered an order imposing pre-filing review. Dkt. 58. 21 The court’s dismissal order set forth the history of plaintiff’s other litigation and the history 22 of this action. See id. at 1-5. The order also “incorporate[d] the factual record and 23 reasoning contained in Judge Alsup’s earlier vexatious-litigant order.” See id. at 12. The 24 court further concluded that “the number of claims Bruzzone has made is inordinate and 25 that those claims were without merit. In addition, the court finds that Bruzzone’s filings 26 show a pattern of harassment, both with respect to the named defendants and the court.” 27 See id. The court further held: making it exceedingly difficult for named defendants and the court to 1 identify the bases of Bruzzone’s allegations. This order extends the original 2 pre-filing review order in finding that Bruzzone’s claims are frivolous, harassing, and brought with no objective good faith expectation of 3 prevailing. This is a flagrant abuse of the judicial process and has enabled Bruzzone to consume a considerable amount of time and resources from 4 everyone involved. Accordingly, this order makes a substantive finding of harassment. 5 The court’s dismissal was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. See Bruzzone v. 6 McManis, 2018 WL 5734546 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2018), aff’d, 785 F. App’x 503 (9th Cir. 7 2019). Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court. See 141 S.Ct. 283. 8 Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to re-litigate his case in this court. In August 9 2022, he filed a motion for “reexamination.” See Dkt. 71. The court denied the motion, 10 and specifically stated that “[t]he court will not entertain any motions for reconsideration 11 of this order.” See Dkt. 77. 12 Plaintiff then filed a “motion to vacate.” See Dkt 85. The court again denied the 13 motion as untimely and as deficient on the merits. See Dkt. 89. 14 As stated above, plaintiff has now filed two motions. Plaintiff’s filings are 15 consistent with the pattern of frivolous claims described in this court’s prior dismissal 16 order. See Dkt. 58. The court concludes that plaintiff’s motion for relief from dismissal 17 (Dkt. 90) and motion to vacate (Dkt. 91) are without merit, and accordingly, the motions 18 are DENIED. The court will not entertain any further motions or requests in this case. 19 Any further filings will be terminated without comment. 20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Dated: September 4, 2024 22 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 23

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge 24

25 26 27