Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:03-CV-266 RM.
May 23, 2007
OPINION AND ORDER
On May 17, 2007, Lester C. Jones, a pro se prisoner, filed a motion to reconsider this court's order of dismissal issued on July 16, 2003. Mr. Jones argues that the substance of the court's ruling was incorrect. He begins by stating that he only just received a copy of that order in April 2007. This statement is both irrelevant and unsubstantiated.
This court has no record of that order being returned as undeliverable. In addition to this case, Mr. Jones also had six other open cases in this court in July 2003.
Jones v. Newkirk, 3:00-cv-00719 (N.D. Ind. filed 11/20/00)
Jones v. Knight, 3:03-cv-00262 (N.D. Ind. filed 04/09/03)
Jones v. Brown, 3:03-cv-00263 (N.D. Ind. filed 04/09/03)
Jones v. Knight, 3:03-cv-00265 (N.D. Ind. filed 04/09/03)
Jones v. Knight, 3:03-cv-00281 (N.D. Ind. filed 04/15/03)
Jones v. Knight, 3:03-cv-00300 (N.D. Ind. filed 04/23/03)
In June, July, and August of 2003, this court sent Mr. Jones 12 other orders, none of which were returned. Though it is possible that this one order was neither delivered nor returned nearly four years ago, that is irrelevant because FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) requires that motions for relief from a judgment or order "shall be made within a reasonable time".
Mr. Jones is an active litigator. The records of this court show that he has initiated 14 lawsuits in this district. Since he filed this lawsuit in April 2003, he has written to this court least 91 times to file letters, motions, complaints, petitions, notices, and other documents. In 40 of the 48 months since he initiated this case in April 2003, he has filed at least one document in at least one of his cases. Indeed, in the past four years he has never gone two months in a row without filing something with this court. Yet he waited until February 2007 to inquire about this case and even then he stated that, "The plaintiff does not recall initiating a civil rights complaint in this cause against defendant Scowden nor does plaintiff recall the identity of the additional defendant(s) in this cause." Docket # 9.
Mr. Jones clearly was able to contact this court. Even if he did not receive the order of dismissal, waiting nearly four years after filing a lawsuit to check up on the progress of the case is not reasonable. Mr. Jones abandoned this litigation. He cannot revive it now with a RULE 60(b) motion because it was not filed within a reasonable time.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion (docket # 16) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.