Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-578-SDD-EWD
12-05-2019
CORNELIUS LORENZO WILSON (#356241) v. CARL DABADIE, JR., ET AL.
RULING
This matter comes before the Court on "Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment Rule 60 and Rule 60(B)" ("Motion"). The Motion shall be denied.
R. Doc. 30.
Pursuant to Ruling and Judgment dated November 5, 2019, the above-captioned proceeding was dismissed with prejudice as legally frivolous and malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The plaintiff did not take an appeal from that Judgment. The plaintiff now seeks to re-open this proceeding arguing that this Court was incorrect in dismissing his Complaint.
R. Docs. 27 & 28.
R. Doc. 30.
Rule 60(b) provides that relief from a judgment or order may be had for (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, (2) newly discovered evidence, (3) fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct by an opposing party, (4) a void judgment, (5) a judgment that has already been satisfied, is no longer equitable, or has effectively been overturned, or (6) any other reason that justifies such relief. Plaintiff has not provided any factual assertions which would support the applicability of any of the first five subsections of Rule 60(b).
Further, to the extent that Plaintiff's pleading may be interpreted as seeking relief under the catch-all provision of Rule 60(b)(6), the motion fares no better. This provision allows a Court to vacate a judgment for "any other reason that justifies such relief and provides a residual clause meant to cover unforeseen contingencies and to accomplish justice in exceptional circumstances. The relief afforded by Rule 60(b)(6) is meant to be extraordinary relief, and it requires that the moving party make a showing of extraordinary circumstances justifying such relief. In the instant motion, Plaintiff has made no showing of unusual or unique circumstances to support the application of Rule 60(b)(6). Plaintiff's action was dismissed as frivolous and malicious because the claims he brought were duplicative of previous litigation brought by the plaintiff. Plaintiff's Rule 60 motion does not change that fact. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to reinstatement of his claim; therefore,
Steverson v. GlobalSantaFe Corp., 508 F.3d 300, 303 (5th Cir. 2007).
Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212, 216, (5th Cir. 2002).
R. Docs. 25 & 27.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment be and is hereby DENIED.
R. Doc. 30. --------
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on December 5, 2019.
/s/ _________
CHIEF JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA