Biggins v. Delaware Dept. of Corrections et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 1/13/16. (sar) Modified on 1/13/2016 (mdb).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 13-1688-GMS
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
I.

INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff, James Arthur Biggins ("Biggins"), an inmate at the James T. Vaughn

Correctional Center ("VCC"), Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit on October 11, 2013 seeking
injunctive relief. (D.1. 1.) Biggins appears prose and was granted permission to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 6.)
II.

BACKGROUND
Biggins filed this lawsuit against the Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC") and

Correct Care Solutions, Inc. ("CCS"), a medical contractor who provided medical and mental
health services to inmates held in Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC") institutions. 1
Although Biggins filed this action as a motion for preliminary injunction, the court screened the
filing to the extent Biggins intended the motion for injunctive relief to also serve as a complaint
and dismissed the DOC. 2 (See D.I. 12.)

1

CCS was the medical service provider from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2014.

2

Biggins seeks only injunctive relief.

Biggins was allowed to proceed against CCS, and a service order was entered that
required him to provide complete USM-285 forms for CCS as well as for the Attorney General
of the State of Delaware so that service could take place. 3 (D.I. 13.) The court docket indicates
that on two separate occasions, Biggins was notified of deficiencies with the submitted USM-285
forms. (D.I. 20, 22.) Biggins initially submitted USM-285 forms for Director of Medical C.D.
McCoy, a non-defendant, and former Delaware Attorney General Joseph F. Biden, who was no
longer the Attorney General. 3 (D.I. 20.) Biggins was advised to submit USM-285 forms for
CCS as well as for the current Attorney General of the State of Delaware. (Id.) He did not.
Instead, on February 10, 2015, Biggins submitted USM-285 forms for Dr. Lynch and Christine
Francis of Connections CSP Inc., neither of whom were named as defendants in this action. (D.I.
22.) On February 11, 2015, Biggins was once again advised to submit the correct USM-285
forms, and he was referred to, and provided a copy of, the court's September 9, 2014 service
order. (Id.)
After the time for submitting the correct USM-285 forms had passed, the court dismissed
the case without prejudice on April 15, 2015 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) because Biggins
had failed to timely submit the required USM-285 forms for service. (D.I. 26.) On April 24,
2015, Biggins filed a motion for reconsideration. (D.I. 27.) Therein he argued that he received

3

Biggins filed a motion for reconsideration of the screening order that was denied on
January 21, 2015. The order gave Biggins an additional 45 days from the date of the order to
submit the required service documents. (D.I. 18.).
3

The incorrect USM-285 forms were received by the court on January 27, 2015.
2

only one notice. 4 In addition, Biggins advised the court that CCS was no longer affiliated with
the DOC, that the services were now provided by Connections CSP, Inc., and he moved to
substitute CCS with Connections CSP, Inc. The court found that Biggins sought relief from the
current medical service provider who is not a party to this action, noted that Biggins had
available to him the option of filing a complaint against the current medical service provider, and
concluded that CCS could not provide the relief that Biggins sought, given that it is no longer the
medical service provider for the DOC. The court found that Biggins had failed to demonstrate
any grounds for reconsideration and denied the motion. (D.I. 29.)
Biggins has now filed a motion for judgment ofrelief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(6). (D.I. 30.) He argues that the court "is bound by controlling law to correct clear error of
law and facts ... to prevent a manifest injustice." (Id. at 1.) Biggins states that, "this court holds
that essentially [my] failure to submit USM-285 form naming correctly the medical director and
medical administrator on two separate occasions serves as a deliberate act not to comply with the
court's order naming those two individuals as employees for Correct Care Solutions, Inc." (Id. at
2.) Biggin argues that this court "abused its authority in dismissing his complaint for such a
'noval' [sic] inaction." (Id. at 2.) Biggins argues that he sought additional time to try to learn the
correct names of defendant, that he attempted to move the case along by notifying the court of
the change of medical contract care providers and sent the court the new names. (Id.) Finally,
Biggins argues that his actions were taken in "bad faith." (Id. at 3.)
Biggins asks the court to vacate the dismissal order (D.I. 26) and to reopen the case in the
interest of justice.

4

The court receipts show that the deficiency notices were mailed to Biggins at his address
at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center.
3

III. STAND ARD
Rule 60(b) provides that a party may file a motion for relief from a final judgment for the
following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence by which due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move
for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party;
(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or
discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or
otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have
prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation
of the judgment.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretion
of the trial court guided by accepted legal principles applied in light of all relevant circumstances.

Pierce Assoc. Inc., v. Nemours Found., 865 F.2d 530, 548 (3d Cir. 1988).
IV. DISCUSSION
Biggins relies upon Rule 60(b )( 6) - "any other reason justifying relief from the operation
of the judgment." Rule 60(b )( 6) "is a catch-all provision that allows relief for any reason
justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." United States v. Witco Corp., 76 F. Supp.
2d 519, 527 (D. Del. 1999). It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to grant or deny
relief under this section. Lasky v. Continental Products Corp., 804 F.2d 250, 256 (3d Cir. 1986).
The Third Circuit "has consistently held that the Rule 60(b)(6) ground for relief from
judgment provides for extraordinary relief and may only be invoked upon a showing of
exceptional circumstances." Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 273 (3d Cir. 2002)
(internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535
(2005) ("[O]ur cases have required a movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) to show
'extraordinary circumstances' justifying the reopening of a final judgment."). Rule 60(b)(6)

4

generally requires the movant to make "a more compelling showing of inequity or hardship" than
would normally be required to reopen a case under any one of the first five subsections of Rule
60(b). Project Mgmt. Inst., Inc. v. Ireland, 144 F. App'x 935 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005) (unpublished).
The court thoroughly reviewed the record and the case law in dismissing the case (D.I.
26) and in denying Biggins' motion for reconsideration (D.I. 29). In ruling on the instant motion,
the court has once again reviewed the file. Biggins ignored court orders, ignored deficiency
notices issued to him, never sought to amend his complaint, and never sought additional time to
submit the correct USM-285 forms, all of which led to the dismissal of this case. It is evident
that Biggins disagrees with the court's ruling. Regardless, this is an insufficient basis for relief
under Rule 60(b)(6).

V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the court will deny the motion for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b)(6).
An appropriate order will be entered.

__
"1~~~-l~)__, 2016
Wilmington, Delaware

5