COURTNEY WILLIAMS 623982 v. DARRYL VANNOY ET AL (2019)

RULING

This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff's Motion to Re-Open Appeal (R. Doc. 6), which the Court interprets to be a Motion for Relief from Judgment brought pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Motion shall be denied.

Pursuant to Judgment dated May 15, 2019 (R. Doc. 5), the above-captioned proceeding was dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to correct the deficiencies in his pleadings of which he was notified. Now the plaintiff seeks to re-open this proceeding and obtain a substantive consideration of his original claims.

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. The plaintiff has not provided any factual assertions which would support the applicability of any of the first five subsections of Rule 60(b). Rather, the plaintiff asserts that he did not have access to his legal materials because he was found guilty of a disciplinary infraction in March and was again found guilty of another disciplinary infraction in April of 2019.

Further, to the extent that the 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. Steverson v. GlobalSantaFe Corp., 508 F.3d 300, 303 (5th Cir. 2007). 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. Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212, 216, (5th Cir. 2002). In the instant motion, the plaintiff has made no showing of unusual or unique circumstances to support the application of Rule 60(b)(6). Accordingly, the plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to reinstatement of his claim; therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment (R. Doc. 6) be and is hereby DENIED.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on July 23, 2019.

CHIEF JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA