GRIFFIN v. DAVIS (2023)

ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF APPEAL AS A FED. R. CIV. P. 60(B)(6) MOTION, AND GRANTING THE MOTION

Plaintiff Terrance Griffin (Griffin) filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Defendants Ryshema Davis, Betty Smith, Brian Kendall, Jonathan Nance, FSS Simon, FSS Ray, FSS Jay, and FSS Gore (Defendants). Griffin is representing himself.

Here is a timeline of the relevant dates in this matter:

In Griffin's November 29, 2023, submission, he challenges the Court's judgment dismissing the case arguing, among other things, that the Court erred in dismissing his suit inasmuch as he failed to receive the Report until after the deadline for filing objections.

The Court is required to liberally construe pro se pleadings, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), holding them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9, 101 S.Ct. 173, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980). “Federal courts sometimes will ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a [filing] and recharacterize [it] ․ to place it within a different legal category․ [so as] to create a better correspondence between the substance of [the] pro se [submission] and its underlying legal basis,” Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-82, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003). See, e.g., Hester v. N.C. Atty. Gen., 199 F.3d 1327 (4th Cir. 1999) (unpublished table decision) (interpreting a “Notice of Appeal” as “Objections to the Report” when the petitioner filed a notice of appeal during the time period for filing objections to the Report); Manning v. SCDC, No. 8:23-cv-1803-MGL, ––– F.Supp.3d ––––, ––––, 2023 WL 4657973, at *2 (D.S.C. July 20, 2023) (“[T]he Court will ignore the legal label that [the plaintiff] attached to his filing and recharacterize it as a Rule 59(e) motion instead of a notice of appeal.”).

Again, in Griffin's November 29 2023, submission, he challenges the Court's judgment dismissing the case. Consequently, following the mandate to construe pro se pleadings liberally, and in the interest of judicial economy, the Court will view the document as a motion attacking the Court's October 31, 2023, judgment, as opposed to a notice of appeal. As such, the Court must decide whether to construe the motion as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment or a Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment.

“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than [twenty-eight] days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). But, Griffin filed his post-judgment motion twenty-nine days after the Court's October 31 2023, judgment, thus outside the twenty-eight day Rule 59(e) requirement. Accordingly, the Court will construe Griffin's November 29, 2023, submission as a Rule 60(b) motion. See Hawkins v. Evans, 64 F.3d 543, 546 (10th Cir. 1995) (explaining that a post-judgment motion filed after the period specified in Rule 59(e) is construed as a Rule 60(b) motion).

As the Court already stated, according to the “South Carolina Department of Corrections Receipt of Legal Correspondence Verification” form Griffin has provided to the Court, he failed to receive a copy of the Report before the objections were due. The Court's experience with the prison mail system causes the Court to find the evidence credible. Accordingly, the Court concludes these circumstances constitute a “reason that justifies relief[ ]” under Rule 60(b)(6).

As such, Griffin's Rule 60(b)(6) motion is GRANTED; and the Court's October 31 2023, judgment is VACATED.

Griffin shall have seventeen days from the date of this Order to file his objections to the Report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

MARY G. LEWIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE