COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge.
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's "Motion to Enter Rule 60(b)(3) Motion Following Complaint to Chief Justice of Court." Upon consideration of the pleadings,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) provides, "[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party." While Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, styles his filing as a "Rule 60(b)(3)" motion, it is far from clear what Court order or orders Plaintiff is seeking relief from and on what basis. As best as the Court can decipher, it appears that Plaintiff is challenging the Court's "Response to [Plaintiff's] `Complaint of Ex-Parte Actions to the Chief Justice of the Court' issued as an Order on May 7, 2014, which addresses Plaintiff's complaints regarding docket entries [18], [23], [36], [39], and a May 7, 2013, Minute Order. See ECF No. [56]. However, Plaintiff's Motion primarily reargues his earlier assertions in his "Complaint of Ex-Parte Actions"—assertions with which the Court already thoroughly engaged in its May 7, 2014, Order. Specifically, Plaintiff appears to again be challenging, on the same bases, docket entries [18], [23], [36], [39], and the May 7, 2103, Minute Order.
Plaintiff does not point to any basis for setting aside the Court's May 7, 2014, Order other than to argue that, although the Court acknowledged in its Order an error that had earlier been made in the docket, the Court "fail[ed] to correct those errors and order erroneous orders to be struck." Pl.'s Mot., at 3. Specifically, Plaintiff is referencing an error made in the Court's October 17, 2013, Order, ECF No. [39], which incorrectly characterized Plaintiff's Reply, ECF No. [38], in support of his motion for default judgment as "untimely." In the Court's May 7, 2014, Order, the Court explained the source of the error:
Although the Court acknowledged the error and found it to be harmless in its May 7, 2014, Order, Plaintiff persists in requesting that the actual erroneous docket entry—ECF No. [39]—be stricken. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS the Clerk of Court to STRIKE the Court's October 17, 2013, Order, ECF No. [39], because—as already acknowledged in the Court's May 7, 2014, Order—it incorrectly characterizes Plaintiff's Reply, ECF No. [38], as untimely.
In addition, Plaintiff challenges, for the first time in his Rule 60(b)(3) Motion, the Court's Order striking Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. See Order (October 25, 2013), ECF No. [41]. Plaintiff asks the Court to strike this Order; however, it is entirely unclear why Plaintiff believes this Order should be stricken. Pl.'s Mot., at 3. The only information or argumentation Plaintiff offers in relation to this Order pertain to supposed irregularities in the Court's mailing of this Order to Plaintiff. The Court is unable to ascertain from Plaintiff's Motion or the docket what, if any, mailing irregularities occurred.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide a reason under Rule 60(b)(3), or any other rule allowing reconsideration of a court's order, for setting aside the Court's May 7, 2014, Order. The Court also finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide a reason for setting aside any of the orders Plaintiff challenged in his "Complaint of Ex-Parte Actions," with the exception of the Court's October 17, 2013, Order, ECF No. [39], which the Court stated supra it will strike. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.