Opinion
Case No. 1:04-CV-804.
October 30, 2006
ORDER
Plaintiff Thomas Censke has filed a one-page document titled "Rule 60(b) New Evidence Motion." (Dkt. No. 14.) He has done so while he has pending an appeal before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the underlying Judgment which is the basis for the "Rule 60(b) New Evidence Motion." ( See Dkt. No. 13, Order reinstating appeal.) Given the pendency of the appeal, the Court reads the Rule 60(b) Motion as a motion for the relief described in First Nat'l Bank of Salem, Ohio v. Hirsch, 535 F.2d 343, 346 (6th Cir. 1976), a certification of the intent to grant Rule 60 relief upon remand. So read, the Motion will be denied. The Motion does not contain a satisfactory description of "new evidence," nor is any explanation given as to why the "new evidence" was not provided in a timely manner. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2); Good v. Ohio Edison Co., 149 F.3d 413, 423 (6th Cir. 1998).
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Thomas A. Censke's Rule 60(b) New Evidence Motion (Dkt. No. 14) is DENIED.