Mayberry v. Hall

Full title: TIMOTHY MARCUS MAYBERRY, Plaintiff, v. STACY HALL, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana

Date published: Feb 3, 2023

3:22-CV-45-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind. Feb. 3, 2023)

Opinion

3:22-CV-45-DRL-MGG

02-03-2023

TIMOTHY MARCUS MAYBERRY, Plaintiff, v. STACY HALL, Defendant.

DAMON R. LEICHTY, JUDGE

OPINION AND ORDER

DAMON R. LEICHTY, JUDGE

This case was dismissed in August 2022 after the court did not receive an amended complaint by the June 25, 2022, deadline. ECF 21, 22. Five months later, Timothy Marcus Mayberry, a prisoner without a lawyer, submitted a filing titled “Verified Notice to Court and Motion for Response.” ECF 26. In it, he informed the court that he submitted his amended complaint to be filed on June 22, 2022, and asked for a response from the court confirming or denying that the complaint was received. ECF 26. A few weeks later, he submitted a “Verified Motion for Clarification of Dismissal, Alternatively, Copy of the Court's Screening Order Dismissing Amended Complaint.” ECF 28. In that motion, he repeats that he submitted an amended complaint for filing on June 22, 2022, and asks the court to confirm whether it was received. A review of filings revealed that the complaint was sent to the court but was inadvertently not docketed. It has now been docketed. ECF 27.

In light of this mistake, the court will exercise its authority under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) to vacate the judgment for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Though ordinarily Rule 60(b) relief must be obtained by motion, this is the unusual case where the interests of justice allow the court to act on its own. See Wright & Miller, 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2865 (3d ed.) (“[T]he court has power to act in the interest of justice in an unusual case in which its attention has been directed to the necessity for relief by means other than a motion.”). Accordingly, the judgment will be vacated so that the amended complaint may be screened as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

For these reasons, the court:

(1) GRANTS the motion for response (ECF 26) and the motion for clarification (ECF 28) and advises Timothy Marcus Mayberry that his amended complaint was received; and

(2) VACATES the order and judgment dismissing this case (ECF 22, 23).

SO ORDERED.