Granville Rose v. Camille Buras, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-31171 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: PRO , Judge: CH Mandate issue date is 12/05/2017; denying motion to enjoin against enforcement of Judgment/Order filed by Appellant Mr. Granville Rose [8459616-2], denying motion for production of Tangible Objects filed by Appellant Mr. Granville Rose [8459490-2]; denying motion for stay pending appeal filed by Appellant Mr. Granville Rose [8459607-2] [16-31171]

Case: 16-31171

Document: 00514234886

Page: 1

Date Filed: 11/13/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-31171
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
November 13, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

GRANVILLE ROSE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.

CAMILLE BURAS; EDDIE JORDAN; AUTHER MOREL; FLOYD TRUHILL;
MYRTLE GATHE THOMPSON; STACEY THOMPSON; LATOYA GATHE;
LOUISIANA STATE; UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES; MARTIN REGAN; KARLA
BAKER; ARIS COX; THOMAS CALOGERO; AARON RIVES; JAMES BUDDY
CALDWELL, Attorney General, State of Louisiana,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:15-CV-880
Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Granville Rose filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against several defendants
to raise several claims concerning his conviction for sexual battery.

The

district court dismissed the suit as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 16-31171

Document: 00514234886

Page: 2

Date Filed: 11/13/2017

No. 16-31171
(1984), and denied the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion that Rose
filed with respect to that judgment. Rose now appeals the district court’s
denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, and he has also filed several motions with this
court requesting various forms of relief. Rose has not shown that the district
court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 60(b) motion. See Diaz v.
Stephens, 731 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2013). The judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED, and all outstanding motions are DENIED.

2