From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dye v. Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dec 21, 2011
Case No. 2:10-cv-10657 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 2:10-cv-10657

12-21-2011

JEFFERY DYE, Plaintiff, v. KAREN JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.


HON. AVERN COHN


ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO RECALL OR

RESCIND THE FORMER ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL (Doc. 8)


I.

This is a pro se prisoner civil rights case brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 7, 2010, the Court dismissed the complaint because it was filed outside the statute of limitations period. (Doc. 6). Before the Court is plaintiff's "Motion to Recall or Rescind the Former Order of Summary Dismissal," filed on September 6, 2011, eighteen months after the complaint was dismissed. The Court construes the motion as a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.

II.

A Rule 60(b) motion may be granted only for certain specified reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, mis-representation, or the like; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. When none of the first five enumerated examples of Rule 60(b) apply, relief may only be available when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances are present. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Byers, 151 F.3d 574, 578 (6th Cir. 1998).

Plaintiff says that in 2002, he was denied access to the courts regarding his right to file a motion for relief from judgment under M.C.R. 6.500. In this motion, he continues to argue that he is being denied access to the courts and that the Court erred by dismissing his complaint on the ground that his claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff has not supplied the Court with any documentation that its conclusion was in error. Accordingly, he has failed to show that he is entitled to relief for any of the reasons set forth in Rule 60 (b). Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

_________

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Jeffery Dye, 149800, Newberry Correctional Facility, Central Complex, 3001 Newberry Avenue Newberry, MI 49868 on this date, December 21, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Julie Owens

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160


Summaries of

Dye v. Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dec 21, 2011
Case No. 2:10-cv-10657 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2011)
Case details for

Dye v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:JEFFERY DYE, Plaintiff, v. KAREN JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Dec 21, 2011

Citations

Case No. 2:10-cv-10657 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2011)