From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pitchford v. Turbitt

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
Sep 8, 2010
No. 3:06-CV-00044 GTE (E.D. Ark. Sep. 8, 2010)

Opinion

No. 3:06-CV-00044 GTE.

September 8, 2010


ORDER


Before the Court is a second Petition to Vacate Order filed by Plaintiff Frederick L. Pitchford, pro se. Pitchford has also requested an evidentiary hearing. Defendant Daniel Madden Turbitt has filed responses to both motions.

The Court previously denied Pitchford's petition arguing that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint. See Order filed October 13, 2006, Docket No. 32.

Pitchford requests that this Court vacate an Order entered December 31, 2002, by Defendant Turbitt in his role as an Administrative Law Judge. For the reasons well stated in Defendant's response, Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 provides no authority to vacate Judge Turbitt's Order. The Court further concludes that Pitchford's motion, filed almost 8 years following Judge Turbitt's decision, is untimely and completely without merit.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order (Docket No. 40) and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Docket No. 41) be, and they are hereby, DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of September, 2010.


Summaries of

Pitchford v. Turbitt

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
Sep 8, 2010
No. 3:06-CV-00044 GTE (E.D. Ark. Sep. 8, 2010)
Case details for

Pitchford v. Turbitt

Case Details

Full title:FREDERICK L. PITCHFORD PLAINTIFF v. DANIEL MADDEN TURBITT, UNITED STATES…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division

Date published: Sep 8, 2010

Citations

No. 3:06-CV-00044 GTE (E.D. Ark. Sep. 8, 2010)