MUHAMMAD v. CROSBY et al

Filing 361

ORDER DENYING 356 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE WILLIAM STAFFORD on 3/27/2014. (dlt)

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

AKEEM MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff,
v.

4:05cv193-WS

JAMES CROSBY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
Judgment was entered in this case on September 3, 2009. See Doc. 339.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment by decision entered July 21, 2010.
See Doc. 352. On December 9, 2013, more than four years after judgment was
entered, the plaintiff filed a Rule 60 motion for partial relief from judgment. Doc.
356. By order entered January 28, 2014, the magistrate judge denied the plaintiff's
Rule 60 motion as untimely and without basis. The plaintiff has now filed
objections (doc. 360) to the magistrate judge's order, arguing—among other
things—that the magistrate judge lacked authority to deny his motion.

Page 2 of 4

The court agrees that the magistrate judge lacked the authority to deny the
plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(6) motion. Absent consent of the parties, dispositive matters
may only be resolved by a district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); see Bannistor v.
Ullman, 287 F.3d 394, 400 (5th Cir. 2002) (noting that district judges may refer
Rule 60 motions to magistrate judge's for report and recommendation under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(3)). In Perry v. Delaware River Port Auth., 208 F. App'x 122 (3d
Cir. 2006), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals explained as follows:
A Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment can only be referred to a
magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), which allows the district
court to assign to the magistrate "additional duties . . . not inconsistent
with the Constitution and laws of the United States." See Conetta v.
Nat'l Hair Care Ctrs., Inc., 236 F.3d 67, 74 (1st Cir. 2001); LeGear v.
Thalacker, 46 F.3d 36, 37 (8th Cir. 1995); McLeod, Alexander, Powel
& Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 925 F.2d 853, 856 (5th Cir. 1991). When a
motion is referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to § 636(b)(3), the
magistrate judge is not authorized to enter judgment for the court, but
instead may issue recommendations to the district court which are then
subject to de novo review. See Quarles, 925 F.2d at 856 n. 5. We
therefore view the Magistrate Judge's March 18, 2004 denial of
Appellant's motion to reopen as a recommendation to the District
Court.
Id. at 125 n.3.
Having reviewed the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment, the
magistrate judge's order (construed as a report and recommendation), and the
plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's order, the court finds—as did the
magistrate judge—that the plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(6) motion must be denied. It is

Page 3 of 4

well-established that a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) may be
granted only in extraordinary circumstances. Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611, 628
(11th Cir. 2014). "[A] change in decisional law is insufficient to create the
'extraordinary circumstance' necessary to invoke Rule 60(b)(6)." Id. (citing
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535-38 (2005)); see also Booker v. Singletary,
90 F.3d 440, 442 (11th Cir. 1996) (noting that "[s]omething more than a 'mere'
change in the law is necessary to provide the grounds for Rule 60(b)(6) relief")
(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Here, the plaintiff asserts that
Rule 60(b)(6) relief is warranted based on (1) a 2013 change in the religious diet
plan used by the Florida Department of Corrections ("FDOC"); and (2) the Eleventh
Circuit's 2013 decision in Rich v. Secretary, Florida Dep't of Corrections, 716 F.3d
525 (11th Cir. 2013) (concluding that FDOC's adoption—during the pendency of
the plaintiff's lawsuit—of a new religious diet plan did not moot the plaintiff's claim
based on the Department's failure to provide kosher meals). The plaintiff's
argument is flawed, however, as neither the change in departmental policy nor the
Eleventh Circuit's decision in Rich creates an "extraordinary circumstance"
justifying Rule 60(b)(6) relief in this case.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
The plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(6) motion (doc. 356) is DENIED.

Page 4 of 4

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th

day of

March

, 2014.

s/ William Stafford
WILLIAM STAFFORD
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE