Elias v. Boswell et al

Filing 37

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 36 MOTION for reconsideration, as further set out in order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/3/14. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
GERETTA C. ELIAS,
Administratrix of the Estate
of Gerald D. Sydnor,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS F. BOSWELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:13-CV-22-WKW
[WO]

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff Geretta C. Ellis’s motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), filed October 30, 2014. (Doc.
# 36.) The court dismissed Ms. Elias’s amended complaint just over one year ago
on October 30, 2013. (Docs. # 34, 35.)
Rule 60(b) provides that:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule
59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based
on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying
it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Rule 60(b) relief is “an extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon a
showing of exceptional circumstances.” Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677,
680 (11th Cir. 1984).
Ms. Elias asserts that denial of her motion for reconsideration will result in
“manifest injustice,” (Doc. # 36, at 1), but she is unspecific as to what grounds
identified in Rule 60(b) support her motion. She asks the court for “another
opportunity to plead . . . so as to articulate the factual basis of her allegations of
deliberate indifference,” which she claims are supported by “the autopsy and the
coroner’s report.” (Doc. # 36, at 2.)1 She requests leave of the court “to file her
memorandum and evidentiary materials and proposed amended complaint in
support of her motion.”

(Doc. # 36, at 2.)

But without a Rule 60(b)-based

explanation for why the court should disturb the final judgment in Defendants’

1

There is no indication that Ms. Elias only recently obtained an autopsy or a coroner’s
report, and furthermore, it is unlikely that these documents are “newly discovered evidence”
because Ms. Elias’s father passed away in January 2011, and any autopsy and coroner’s report
likely would have been available before she filed this case in January 2013. Additionally, Ms.
Elias does not suggest how this evidence would support the crux of her deliberate indifference
claim, i.e., that Defendants knew of her father’s need for serious medical care and willfully
denied that care.
2

favor, the court will not grant Ms. Elias leave to supplement this motion for
reconsideration with additional filings. See Enwonwu v. Trans Union, LLC, 164
F. App’x 914, 919 (11th Cir. 2006) (affirming denial of a motion for
reconsideration where the movant did not show that the relief was warranted by the
specific circumstances named in Rule 60(b)(1)–(5) or any other extraordinary
circumstances per Rule 60(b)(6)).
Additionally, Rule 60(c) requires that a Rule 60(b) motion must be filed
“within a reasonable time,” and that a motion brought pursuant to subsections (1),
(2), or (3) of Rule 60(b) must be made “no more than a year after the entry of the
judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Ms. Elias offers no explanation for why she
waited exactly 365 days to file her motion or why her one year delay is
“reasonable.”
Hence, for these reasons, is ORDERED that Ms. Elias’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
DONE this 3rd day of November, 2014
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3