Harris v. Corrections Corporation of America

Full title: MICHAEL G. HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA…

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division

Date published: Oct 29, 2010

Case No. 3:00-cv-1297-J-12MCR (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 3:00-cv-1297-J-12MCR.

October 29, 2010

ORDER

HOWELL MELTON, Senior District Judge

This cause is before the Court on "Plaintiff's Motion to Court to Disqualify and Recuse" (Doc. 217) ("motion to recuse") and "Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order" (Doc. 216) (motion for reconsideration), both filed September 24, 2010.¹ Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order (Doc. 215) filed August 27, 2010, denying "Plaintiff's Motion for Relief From Void Judgment for Fraud Upon the Court . . ." (Doc. 214). He also seeks recusal of the undersigned on the basis of alleged bias against Plaintiff, disregard for Plaintiff's arguments, failure to adhere to the law and violation of the law, failure to adhere to the Court's own orders, and acting without jurisdiction, after the jury trial of this case in November 2003. Doc. 217 at 1.

1 Plaintiff's motions both contain Certificates of Service indicating that a copy was mailed to Counsel of Record for Defendant. Defendant has not filed a response to either of Plaintiff's motions, nor was it required to do so, as this case is closed and the judgment has been final for over five years.

The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's motion to recuse and motion for reconsideration and will deny both. Plaintiff continues to seek to set aside the Court's Order (Doc. 167) setting aside the jury's verdict in this case and directing judgment as a matter of law, alleging fraud on the part of Defendant's attorneys and procedural and legal errors affecting the timeliness of Defendant's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff previously appealed that Order (Doc. 167), as well as two other Orders (Docs. 194 and 201) denying his Fed.R.Civ.P 60(b) requests to set it aside.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Court's Order (Doc. 167) setting aside the jury's verdict in this case and directing judgment as a matter of law (see Doc. 184, reported at 139 Fed.Appx. 156 (11^th Cir. 2005)), dismissed his appeal of his first 60(b) request as untimely (see Doc. 199), and affirmed the Court's ruling on his second 60(b) request (see Doc. 213, reported at 332 Fed.Appx. 593 (11^th Cir. 2009). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals also found Plaintiff's mandamus petition requesting reversal of the Court's Order (Doc. 167) setting aside the jury's verdict in this case and directing judgment as a matter of law to be frivolous. See Doc. 185.

It is now more than five years after the judgment in this case became final. As the Court has noted previously, Plaintiff has fully litigated both his substantive claims and any alleged procedural or legal errors in this case, both in this Court and in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, or has had a full and fair opportunity to do so. The Court issued its rulings in accordance with the facts in the record and applicable law and Plaintiff has had a full and fair opportunity to obtain review of those rulings and has done so as heretofore stated.

Plaintiff has established no legal or factual basis for the Court's disqualification or recusal and so the Court will deny his motion to recuse. The Court also finds that the Plaintiff has established no legal or factual basis for reconsidering, voiding, or setting aside the Order (Doc. 215), filed August 27, 2010. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be denied. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. That "Plaintiff's Motion to Court to Disqualify and Recuse" (Doc. 217) is denied; and

2. That "Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order" (Doc. 216) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of October 2010.