Strole v. Wirth et al

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
Sherri Strole,
Plaintiff,
v.
Mark Wirth, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-24-08211-PCT-DJH
ORDER
On December 3, 2025, Plaintiff Sherri Strole (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Waiver
of All Fees and Costs (including reproduction costs for case files, transcripts, and
recordings), and Motion to Reinstate Case and Consolidate and Expand or Assign Legal
Counsel (Doc. 19).
Plaintiff’s case was closed for failure to prosecute on August 4, 2025.
(See Doc. 18). Plaintiff now requests the reinstatement of her case, claiming that she was
“unable to meet the traditional and restricted (by clerks) service requirement that led to
dismissal.” (Doc. 19 at 2). Because Plaintiff submitted her motion for reinstatement more
than ten days after entry of judgment, the Court must treat it as a motion for relief from
judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See American
Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir.
2001). Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment
on the following grounds: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)
newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud or misrepresentation of an adverse party; (4) the
Case 3:24-cv-08211-DJH Document 20 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 3

- 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
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied or discharged; or (6) any other reason
justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Although Plaintiff states that the dismissal of her case was “in error” and the “clerks
denied return of summons with conformed copies in order to facilitate traditional service,”
she provides no further explanation or proof, nor does she explain why she was waited
months after her case was closed to bring this Motion. (See Doc. 19 at 2). Simply put,
Plaintiff has not made the proper showing to establish grounds for relief under any of the
above circumstances. Bailey v. United States, 250 F.R.D. 446, 448 (D. Ariz. 2008) (“A
party seeking relief from the judgment has the burden of demonstrating such relief is
appropriate.”)
Plaintiff also seeks to consolidate several state court cases into this matter. (See
Doc. 19 at 5–6). However, this request is futile. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 42(a) only permits
consolidation of cases “before the court.” Id. (emphasis added). It does not enable the
Court to consolidate its federal court case with a case filed in state court, even if there is
common parties and subject matter. See O’Donahue v. Tuugiiboss Trans Inc., 2024 WL
1533612, *2 (W.D. Wash. 2024); 9A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2382 (3d ed. 2023) (“[A] court may not consolidate an action pending in
federal court with an action pending in state court.”). Her requests to consolidate other
cases in this District into this matter (see Doc. 19 at 5–6), likewise, fails because this case
is closed and will remain closed.
Lastly, Plaintiff’s requests to waive all fees and appoint counsel are denied as moot
because her case will not be reinstated.
Accordingly,
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:24-cv-08211-DJH Document 20 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
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
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Waiver of All Fees and Costs
(including reproduction costs for case files, transcripts, and recordings), and Motion to
Reinstate Case and Consolidate and Expand or Assign Legal Counsel (Doc. 19) is
DENIED. This matter shall remain closed.
Dated this 2nd day of April, 2026.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-08211-DJH Document 20 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 3