Opinion
Civil Action 09-70
12-20-2023
WILLIAM BRANDON CUMMINGS, Plaintiff, v. G. K. REPOSKY, THOMAS RICHTER, and NURSE KUTCHER, Defendants.
Joy Flowers Conti District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: ECF NO. 90
MAUREEN P. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff William Brandon Cummings (“Plaintiff') filed this action in 2009. ECF No. 1. Over a decade after a jury found in Defendants' favor, Plaintiff now brings this motion for relief from judgment or order seeking a new trial. ECF No. 90. For the reasons below, this untimely motion should be denied.
II. REPORT
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff began this action on January 20, 2009, by filing a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion”), together with a proposed Complaint. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff s IFP Motion was granted on February 2, 2009, and his Complaint was filed on the same date. ECF Nos. 3 and 4.
Defendants moved to dismiss certain claims. ECF No. 26. After the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs only remaining claim was an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Reposky, Richter, and Kutcher. ECF No. 39.
Following an initial period of fact discovery, the Court appointed pro bono counsel to represent Plaintiff. ECF Nos. 40, 58, 59. The Court then granted the parties an extension of time to complete fact discovery. ECF Nos. 61 and 62. After fact discovery closed, however, Plaintiff requested that his attorney withdraw her appearance, and he continued to prosecute this action pro se. ECF No. 69.
Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants proceeded to trial in January 2012 before United States District Judge Joy Flowers Conti. The jury entered a verdict in favor of Defendants on January 13, 2012. ECF No. 84. Judgment was entered on the same date. ECF No. 87.
B. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER
Over eleven years after the verdict and judgment, Plaintiff filed a handwritten letter to Judge Conti. ECF No. 90. The Court construes the letter as a motion for relief from judgment or order. In the motion, Plaintiff claims that he previously was unable to locate his witnesses to testify at trial. According to Plaintiff, he recently learned this happened because Defendants removed his witnesses' names from the list of inmates they provided to his attorney. In July 2023, Defendant Thomas Richter told him, “we ruined your suit, Cummings. Couldn't find your witnesses, could you? The list was doctored we gave you. You'll die in here this time.” Other prison officials also told Plaintiff that his lawyer chose not to find his witnesses. Id. Based on these assertions, Plaintiff now asks for a new trial.
C. DISCUSSION
Upon review, the instant motion should be denied. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60 govern requests for new trials and relief from judgment. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, a party can move for a new trial no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b). Because it has been over a decade since the entry of judgment, the Court cannot grant Plaintiffs requested relief under Rule 59.
Plaintiff also is not entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. Under Rule 60(b)(2), a party may request relief from judgment for “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b).” However, any such motion must be brought no later than one year after the entry of judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1). Because it has been more than a year, this motion is untimely under Rule 60(b). Further, Plaintiff does not point to any newly discovered evidence to support such relief. Of note, Plaintiff previously identified the witnesses that he refers to in this motion in a pretrial statement that he filed on June 17, 2010. ECF Nos. 44 and 90. Accordingly, the Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order should be denied.
D. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order, ECF No. 90, should be denied. .
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections the parties are permitted to file written objections within fourteen days, or seventeen days for unregistered ECF Users. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.