Morris v. Southern Intermodal Xpress et al

Filing 69

ORDER DENYING Plf's 63 Motion for Relief from Judgment as set out. Southern Intermodal Express' 64 Motion for Sanctions is DENIED, & no sanctions are imposed at this time, but Plf is warned that continued filing of frivolous or scurr ilous motions or documents in this case will result in the imposition of sanctions. The document filed by Plf on 5/29/19 (Doc. 68 ) is STRICKEN from the record. Signed by Senior Judge Callie V. S. Granade on 5/30/19. (copy mailed to Plf on 5/31/19) (tot)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SOUTHERN INTERMODAL
XPRESS, ASSURANT EMPLOYEE
BENEFITS, UNION SECURITY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-632-CG-N
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) (Doc. 63), opposition thereto
filed by Defendant Southern Intermodal Express and motion for sanctions (Doc. 64),
and Plaintiff’s reply (Doc. 65). For the reasons explained below, the Court finds
that Plaintiff’s motion for relief should be denied. The Court also finds that
Defendant’s motion for sanctions should be denied at this time, but warns Plaintiff
that if he files frivolous or scurrilous motions in the future they will be stricken and
monetary sanctions may be considered.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this ERISA action, pro se, against Southern Intermodal Xpress
(“SIX”), Assurant Employee Benefits (“Assurant”), and Union Security Insurance
Company (“Union”) on December 21, 2016, seeking death benefits after the death of

1

Gwendolyn Morris. On January 31, 2017, SIX moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 5). The motion to dismiss was referred to the
Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation.
On February 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed two emergency motions: the first for
Court seizure of money he paid for the life insurance at issue; the second asked the
Court to seize a copy of the life insurance policy. (Docs. 18, 19). The Court denied
both emergency motions noting that Plaintiff had already attached a copy of the
insurance policy to his complaint and finding that Plaintiff had not explained why
emergency relief was necessary or warranted and had not made the required
showings for relief. (Doc. 26).
On March 2, 2017, Plaintiff moved for sanctions against SIX and SIX’s
counsel. (Doc. 25). This Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, finding SIX and its counsel
had not acted wrongfully or improper. (Doc. 27).
On April 28, 2017, this Court entered an Order adopting the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge which recommended dismissal of SIX
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), but without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to file
an amended complaint that properly alleged a claim by not later than May 15, 2017.
(Doc. 37). Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Instead, Plaintiff filed a
“Motion to Reconsider Document Number 37; Or Certify the Document Number 37
Resolution as a Final Matter Ripe for Appellate Review.” (Doc. 38). On May 19,
2017, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 39).
On July 13, 2017, the remaining Defendants filed a motion for judgment on
2

the record. (Doc. 43). On July 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed an emergency motion to
compel against SIX, even though SIX had been dismissed and was no longer a party
to the action. (Doc. 40). That motion was denied on June 20, 2017. (Doc. 41). On
September 14, 2017, this Court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment on the
record and entered an order dismissing this action against the remaining
Defendants with prejudice. (Docs. 47, 48).
On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “David Morris
Motion for Judgment Pursuant to Document Number Three (3) and Relief from
Judgments Pronounced and other wise Un-Pronounced” (Doc. 49), which the Court
construed as a motion for reconsideration. In the motion, Plaintiff refers to the
evidence he submitted in “Court Docket – Document Number Three (3)” and
contends that SIX was not dismissed or released by the Court and that the case
should proceed. Plaintiff also sought reconsideration of the ruling in favor of
Defendants Assurant and Union. The Court denied the motion on January 31,
2018. (Doc. 50).
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on February 28, 2019. (Doc. 51). The
Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming the judgment against Plaintiff on
December 4, 2018. (Docs. 60, 67). Plaintiff then filed two emergency motions in the
Eleventh Circuit, which the Eleventh Circuit denied. (Doc. 64-2). Plaintiff also
moved for rehearing in the Eleventh Circuit. (Doc. 64-1). Plaintiff then moved to
stay further appellate proceedings. SIX moved for sanctions against Plaintiff in the
Eleventh Circuit. On April 9, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit denied Plaintiff’s motion to

3

stay, denied SIX’s motion for sanctions and denied Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s current motion seeks reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). (Doc. 63). The motion states that it is “Directed Against”
SIX and SIX’s attorney – Lisa Cooper. The Court notes that SIX states in its
response that the case is currently on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit issued an
opinion affirming this Court’s judgment (Doc. 62), denied Plaintiff’s motion for
rehearing, and on April 18, 2019, issued a mandate (Doc. 67). Even if the case were
still on appeal, a district court may consider and deny a motion for reconsideration
while the case is on appeal or can state that it “would grant the motion if the court
of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.”
FED. R CIV. P. 62.1; Munoz v. United States, 451 F.App’x 818, 819 (11th Cir. 2011)
(finding that while a case is on appeal a district court may address the merits of a
Rule 60(b) motion and deny the motion or indicate its belief that it is meritorious).
Thus, it is clear that the motion for reconsideration is properly before this Court.
Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is permitted for
the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due 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
other misconduct of an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, it is based on an

4

earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). Plaintiff’s motion indicates he seeks reconsideration under
60(b)’s catchall “any other reason that justifies relief.” “[R]elief under this clause is
an extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances.” Crapp v. City of Miami Beach, 242 F.3d 1017, 1020 (11th Cir. 2001)
(quoting Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984)). Even if a
movant can persuade the court that the circumstances are sufficiently
extraordinary to warrant relief, whether to grant the relief is “a matter for the
district court's sound discretion.” Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307,
1317 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting Booker v. Singletary, 90 F.3d 440, 442 (11th
Cir.1996)).
Plaintiff’s motion appears to again attack the dismissal of SIX and claims
that this Court “trusted” and allowed SIX’s attorney “to slip in proposed orders that
did not reflect the truth” because counsel once worked as a law clerk for another
judge in this Court. (Doc. 63, p. 1). Plaintiff also contends that he was unable to
challenge blatant untruths because “the Court Docket sheet was on lock down” and
he “could not challenge what was delayed and slowed to appear of record until it
appeared.” (Doc. 63, p. 2). According to Plaintiff the “lock of the Docket proceeding
advanced the fraud causes of [SIX and SIX’s counsel].” (Doc. 63, p. 2). Plaintiff also
objects to SIX’s counsel having had access to life insurance coverage documents and
information regarding the premiums paid and claims the documents were “held
5

from the Court.” (Doc. 63, p. 2). Plaintiff’s reply reasserts some of the same claims
he made in prior motions.
The Court finds no merit to Plaintiff’s arguments. This Court and the
Eleventh Circuit found that Plaintiff failed to allege any impropriety by SIX in its
handling of Plaintiff’s claim for life insurance. The decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim
was made by Union Security Insurance Company, not SIX. SIX moved to dismiss
Plaintiff’s claim against it and Plaintiff was given ample opportunity to respond and
did in fact respond in opposition to the motion. Plaintiff was again permitted to
respond after the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on the
motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an objection, which this Court considered before
adopting the Report and Recommendation. Moreover, prior to the current motion
this Court, in two separate orders, addressed Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the
Court’s ruling adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc.
39, 50). As to the insurance documents Plaintiff claims were “held from the Court,”
Plaintiff attached a copy of the insurance coverage documents to his complaint (Doc.
1), and the Court and all of the parties have had access to them since the beginning
of this action. Information regarding the premiums Plaintiff paid was not necessary
for the determination that SIX should be dismissed. For all of these reasons, the
Court finds that Plaintiff’s arguments have no merit. Plaintiff has clearly not
shown that exceptional circumstances exist that justify relief from judgment.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is due to be denied.
As to SIX’s motion for sanctions, the Court declines to issue any monetary

6

sanctions at this time. “Courts have the inherent authority to control the
proceedings before them, which includes the authority to impose "reasonable and
appropriate" sanctions.” Martin v. Automobili Lamborghini Exclusive, Inc., 307 F.3d
1332, 1335 (11th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). However, “[t]o exercise its inherent
power [to sanction] a court must find that the party acted in bad faith.” Id. “[A]
court may assess attorney's fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously,
wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 33
(1991). However, in determining whether the Plaintiff has shown bad faith the
Court must be mindful that it “should show a leniency to pro se litigants not enjoyed
by those with the benefit of a legal education.” GJR Investments Inc. v. County of
Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) overruled on other grounds by
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Nevertheless, “[P]ro se filings do not serve as
an impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog
the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court
dockets.” Patterson v. Aiken, 841 F.2d 386, 387 (11th Cir. 1988) (citation and
internal quotations omitted).
In support of its motion for sanctions SIX cites a prior case in this Court in
which the Court sanctioned a pro se litigant for “persistant and recurring efforts to
malign, calumniate and denigrate this tribunal with scurrilous filings.” Bethel v.
Town of Loxley, 2006 WL 3449140, at *2 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 29, 2006). In the Bethel
case, this Court concluded “that plaintiffs' course of conduct constitutes or is
tantamount to bad faith.” Id. (citation omitted). This Court stated:

7

Notwithstanding plaintiffs' pro se status, their pleadings must exhibit
proper decorum and respect, regardless of whether they concur with
this Court's decisions. Ad hominem attacks in written filings in federal
court are never acceptable, and will not be tolerated.

Id. However, even in Bethel, the Court did not award monetary sanctions but found
that the appropriate sanction was to strike the Plaintiff’s filings. Id. This Court
then advised the Plaintiffs “that all future pleadings, motions and other papers they
may file in this or any other action proceeding before the undersigned must comport
with the basic standards of decorum and respect” or would be “summarily stricken
without comment.”
SIX does not specify the sanction it requests but asks that Plaintiff be
sanctioned in a manner the Court deems appropriate. Plaintiff’ has continually filed
motions objecting to and requesting reconsideration of the Court’s rulings and his
filings have made serious unsupported allegations. However, the Court is hesitant
to conclude that Plaintiff’s filings were in bad faith, rather than the result of a
disappointed and dismayed claimant who honestly does not fully understand the
proceedings. The Court will not issue sanctions at this time, but Plaintiff is warned
that if he files additional frivolous pleadings in this case the Court will impose
sanctions. Any future filings that are frivolous or make scurrilous claims and
malign this Court, the Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel will be stricken and
monetary sanctions may be considered.
The Court notes that on May 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document entitled
“DAVID MORRIS’ Disclosure; and Notice of Criminal Collusion, Negligence

8

Practiced Against David Morris by Lisa Stinson; John Stinson, Stephanie Charfee,
et al.” (Doc. 68). In this new filing, Plaintiff accuses SIX and its counsel of criminal
activity related to this action. The Court finds that these statements are scurrilous
and unfounded. The Court therefore STRIKES the filing (Doc.68) from the record.
CONCLUSION
For the above stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (Doc.
63), is DENIED.
The motion of Southern Intermodal Express for sanctions (Doc. 64) is
DENIED and no sanctions are imposed at this time, but Plaintiff is warned that
continued filings of frivolous or scurrilous motions or documents in this
case will result in the imposition of sanctions.
The document filed by Plaintiff on May 29, 2019 (Doc. 68) is hereby
STRICKEN from the record.
DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of May, 2019.
/s/ Callie V. S. Granade
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9