Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-cv-2319-WDM-MJW.
October 19, 2005
ORDER
This matter is before me on Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Order, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Plaintiff is seeking relief from an order issued by Judge Weinshienk on April 26, 2004, dismissing his first three claims. Although the order was issued some time ago, Plaintiff points to unusual circumstances as justification for the delay. As I noted in my June 8, 2005 order, Plaintiff never received Judge Weinshienk's order because he filed a notice of change of address on the same day the order issued. Therefore, I provided a copy of Judge Weinshienk's order along with my June 8, 2005 order.
Judge Weinshienk dismissed Plaintiff's first three claims because she found them barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In his motion, Plaintiff appears to argue that Heck's holding is somehow undermined by Wilkinson v. Dotson. 125 S.Ct. 1242 (2005). However, Wilkinson merely reaffirmed the portion of Heck that Judge Weinshienk relied on. See Wilkinson, 125 S.Ct. at 1247-48. Therefore, I find no reason to grant relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
Accordingly, it is ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Order Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), filed October 3, 2005, (Docket #128) is denied.