The opinion of the court was delivered by: Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge
Pending before the Court is plaintiff Orly Taitz's second motion  for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Upon consideration of the motion, the opposition, the reply thereto, the applicable law, and the entire record herein, the Court will deny the motion for the reasons set forth below.
Plaintiff filed suit seeking, among other relief, a writ of quo warrantor against the President to determine his eligibility for office. On April 14, 2010, the Court granted [22, 23] defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint. On June 18, 2010, the Court denied  plaintiff's first amended motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) . Plaintiff has now filed a second motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a court may relieve a party from an otherwise final judgment or order for one of the following six reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A party must make a Rule 60(b) motion "within a reasonable time," and for subsections (1)--(3), "no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
As this Court has noted, motions to amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) are disfavored and should be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. Liberty Prop. Trust v. Republic Props. Corp., 570 F. Supp. 2d 95, 97 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing Niedermeir v. Office of Baucus, 153 F. Supp. 2d 23, 28 (D.D.C. 2001)). But the standards that govern Rule 60(b) are even more restrictive. United States v. Pollard, 290 F. Supp. 2d 153, 156--58 (D.D.C. 2003). Indeed, "in most cases, the bar stands even higher for a party to prevail on a Rule 60(b) ...