ZAVALA v. WARD, et al.

Filing 96

ORDER denying 95 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE TILMAN E SELF, III on 11/18/2021. (chc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DAVID ZAVALA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner TIMOTHY C. WARD, et al.,

CIVIL ACTION NO.
5:19-cv-00383-TES-CHW

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Defendant Zavala’s Motion for Relief from Judgment 1 [Doc.
95] that he filed “as an alternative” to the “laborious [and] complex task of filing an
appellant’s brief.” [Doc. 95, p. 1]. Plaintiff previously filed an Amended Objection [Doc.
91] that the Court construed as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the order adopting
the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [Doc. 83] entered against him. See [Doc. 92].
In its Order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s requested relief because he failed to “point to
newly-discovered evidence or demonstrate a manifest error of law.” [Id. at p. 3].
Specifically, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s Amended Objections “contain[ed] the same

Although docketed as a “Motion for Reconsideration,” Plaintiff titled his Motion as a “Motion for Relief
From Judgment” and specifically relies on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 which provides when
parties are entitled to relief from a judgment or order. As such, the Court will treat this as a Motion for
Relief from Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) and not as a Motion for Reconsideration under Middle
District of Georgia Local Rule 7.6.

1

recycled argument that he’s made several times now during the process of this
litigation: that his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies should be excused.”
[Id. at pp. 3–4].
Plaintiff brings this Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to rule 60(b)(3),
which provides that relief from a final judgment is appropriate whenever there is
“fraud . . . misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(3). “To prevail on a 60(b)(3) motion, the movant must prove by clear and
convincing evidence that an adverse party has obtained the verdict through fraud,
misrepresentation, or other misconduct.” Cox Nuclear Pharmacy, Inc. v. CTI, Inc., 478 F.3d
1303, 1314 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Frederick v. Kirby Tankships, Inc., 205 F.3d 1277, 1287
(11th Cir. 2000); Booker v. Dugger, 825 F.2d 281, 283 (11th Cir. 1987)) (cleaned up).
“Additionally, the moving party must show that the conduct prevented the losing party
from fully and fairly presenting his case of defense.” Id. (cleaned up). Plaintiff’s Motion
fails to provide clear and convincing evidence that the Defendants obtained a verdict
through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct.
The current Motion for Relief from Judgment centers on the same allegations that
Plaintiff has recycled throughout the entire case: that the Defendant’s conduct
prevented him from exhausting his administrative remedies. See generally [Doc. 95];
[Doc. 91]; [Doc. 81]; [Doc. 72]; [Doc. 70]. These arguments have been evaluated by the
United States Magistrate Judge when he recommended that the Court should grant the
2

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, and when he recommended the Court should deny
Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment. See [Doc. 71]; [Doc. 80]. Moreover, the Court
reviewed and considered these arguments when it conducted de novo reviews of both
R&Rs submitted by the magistrate judge. See [Doc. 73]; [Doc. 83]. The Court also
considered these arguments in its Order construing Plaintiff’s Amended Objection as a
Rule(60)(b) motion and denied him relief from the Order adopting the magistrate
judge’s R&R. See [Doc. 92]. The Court simply does not find that these rehashed
arguments provide clear and convincing evidence that Defendants obtained judgment
through any misconduct, let alone misconduct that would warrant relief.
Plaintiff has failed to produce any new evidence showing that Defendants
secured the Judgment entered against him by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or
misconduct. He has simply rehashed his oft-repeated arguments as “fraud” in hopes
that the Court will somehow come to a different conclusion. It won’t. Consequently, the
Court DENIES his Motion for Relief from Judgment [Doc. 95].
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of November, 2021.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III__________________
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3