RICHARDSON v. CONLEY et al

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING 22 Motion to Alter Judgment; DENYING as moot 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel; DENYING as moot 23 Motion for Preliminary Injunction/Motion for TRO; DENYING as moot 25 Motion for Writ of Mandamus; and DENYING as moot 27 Motion for Preliminary Injunction/Motion for TRO. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 10/4/2017. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
WALTER C RICHARDSON,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
VS.
:
:
Warden T J CONLEY, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
________________________________ :

NO. 5:16-cv-00096-MTT-MSH

ORDER
Plaintiff Walter C Richardson, an inmate confined at the Central State Prison in
Macon, Georgia, filed a pro se civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
After conducting a preliminary review of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a), the Court found that his allegations failed to state a viable claim and dismissed
the Complaint. Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s (1) motion to appoint counsel,
(2) motion to alter judgement, (3) motion for preliminary injunction; (4) motion for writ of
mandamus, and (5) motion for preliminary injunction.

Plaintiff’s motion to alter

judgment (ECF No. 22) is DENIED and the remaining motions (ECF No. 21; 23; 25; 27)
are DENIED as moot as final judgment has been entered.
Although Plaintiff has titled his motion to alter or vacate judgment as brought under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), Plaintiff filed his motion nearly two months after
final judgment was entered in this case. It is therefore untimely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A
motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of

the judgment.”). Nevertheless, “an untimely Rule 59(e) motion to vacate is properly
treated as a Rule 60(b) motion.” Jones v. Southern Pan Servs., 450 F. App’x 860 (11th
Cir. 2012). “The grounds for granting a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate are (1) mistake or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud or misconduct by an opposing
party; (4) void judgment; (5) satisfied judgment; or (6) any other reason that justifies
relief.” Id. (citing See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
Plaintiff’s motion to alter judgment, treated as a Rule 60(b) motion, lists in
chronological order five separate filings Plaintiff submitted post-judgment, each of which
relates to discovery.

In the motion, Plaintiff provides no viable grounds for granting

relief from the Court’s judgment and does not otherwise argue or explain why this case
should be reopened.

Although the motion is titled as being brought under Rule 59, it

appears that Plaintiff is attempting to continue with this case despite judgment having been
entered. This is not a valid basis for granting Rule 60 relief. It is also not a valid basis for
relief under rule 59. An independent review of the record also reveals no reason justifying
relief. Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 22), titled as being brought under Rule
59, is DENIED. Plaintiff’s remaining post-judgment motions (ECF No. 21; 23; 25; 27)
are DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED, this 4th day of October, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2