Moreland v. Wood et al

Filing 63

ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE; terminating 60 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 61 Motion to Set Aside Judgment; denying 62 Motion. This civil action is closed. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 5/1/15. (cmr)

IN

DAVID L.

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
SOUIHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRI'NS}IICK DIVISION

MORELAN D I

cv 2L4-r43
C H I E F J U D G E ] , I S A G O D B E YW O O D ,
et al. ,

ORDER

Plaintiff
/-^mnl:inr

judges

annnci

this

nn

Court

Magistrate

under

the

(1)

of
(3)

and

)n1

h ic

A

^l

n^

fifed

.an

al

the

al-\^r:l-

instant

._ - < h , F. 1 a c y
^n_r

F

employmenL disc-rimj-nation
omnl

nrrar

cLaims againsL

James E,
judicial

all

latli

farmar

aII

Judge

doctrine

malpractlce;

Chief

Craham,

and
(2)

immunjLy;

claims

under

nn

Ahri

lawsuit,

I

1 A

)|'1q

Judge Lisa

Clerk
alf

Lois

claims

42 U.S,C.

Godbey

TunstalI
for

Iegal

SS 1983 & 1985 as

barred.
The Court

r.r^Ff

'1
I

rnn

djsmissed

("PIaintlff")

Moreland

h-is prior

in

I eurrrarc

Wood.

time

L.

qan1- amhcr

^n

among the
rha

David

rl

_

rr

.rndcr

also

status

^ n p . )! r l - urr.ri r u -y- r
vynv
L

1-.\

any

filed

on

such
or

ar

:h/.l

'rrr

claim.
April

uu"rlJlof

rrL,

Pfainriff's
30,

2015.

Civil
6

-^^^r

as a p-ro se litigant.

i'rA-r-l

before

Pla.inti-ff's

that

H^,.,a

n- ar]

Plaintiff's

stare

found

the

--r !L

i n

RICO claims

iC.a I lV

Court
.arl-

: in

i r

rF.erence

afforded

than

LO

him the

n: :mat
y ur_ U T L -L L L .Lr -^5 ,

amended complaint
Rather

were

fife

was
an

to

LU

be

amended

PIaj-ntif f

compfaint,
a

motion

to

vacate

.fF,6ra:Fi6r

hi e

Lr

motlon

d

has

to

Tl.a
rha

r.li r-e

Rule

(Doc.

60(b) .

Pl2lntiff's

Court

i ^e

deadline

ruf ed

on

61.)
file

to

motion

the

to

\.r!'\/ l-'F

hrr

the

l4otion

\\an

.^f

ha

motion.
and

ex"ended

plainfiff

'pd

a

a.Ll

r-i cnr-i pS

f-^rrrf
-

rnmnol

Anr-nrrl i r-nl rz

Court..

to

lha

,rF

the
has

theory.

n!
vf

the

the

ions,

l-.

fnl

has
l.rW

Pl:in-iff,s

ex

parte

tne

motion

Plainciff

that

c c r lo ' ,

* -eaq.\F

thls

59 at

Court
inter

is

alia,

Order

fi l^q. l^r h J ^u P r f d L c
l rl nrl

corununicat ions.

(Doc.

alleges/

2015

16,

misrepresentacion,

nammii*inn

States, "

determined

April

,.licmi

case,

f rac^:cc:-d

Unired

Courtr s

ri r na P nJ lnun r - : l - a
r rn l r P i

with

violat

l ar.re

of

vacate

^ r u 'J, rn- .ui r
<
gl^

unconstirutional

conspiracy

cl^nr_ n

that

.i6ti

r-omnlairf

filed

that

and

thp

He

Judgment

interference

Plaintiff

Defa'rd:nt-q.

he

thar

resol-VeS

nlpadin.r

h:q

action.

this

Order

f-ourL
nrr<

ranl.o:r"l

moves

Plaintiff

constj tut lon

srates

earlier

ee-r

/-\n

Vacate

to

.ir.a-

he

lhF

tho

f^

stay

DENIED.

62) is

deIay,

l-a

to

,.,h--a:^

rr.r' il

inn,,-qad
rr.lr r'/

basis

Court/ s

-)oenl

raAcaa

i rrnnqed

6, j l
JO

y^Fian

cl-^\,c.1

bF

nnnnrf

n^

no

-L.JLrurr

the

thev

rha

nraqan.c.l

tAar
\uu\-,

'd

qhr\

iFf

B.

aside

.li s^flraFq

n-ei

(doc.

the

forth

set

Pa!o9!arrrr

set

a-r-rt-

- r rrc'

elav

l-.

until

r:6h

Lwu

nrnr-ee-lrnc:q

p-.ainf

under

he filed

First,

Stay

to

Pfaintiff

that

r--r'rf

moLions.

(Doc. 62 , )

Motion

IJLs-sri

two orher

judgment

-hF

, e m a n . l a . ] . . . m r - \ 'rl i n t

A.

filed

the

L.^ r^,'a^

vacate.

F.d

has

if^

fraud.

conspiracy/
,.rAincl.

2-3. )

It

now part
Lhat

this

the

appears
of

h.is

Courr

l:-kc

erlh-ia.-r

,lrrdoe q-iA.

i-hat
.],16

m.f

6r^^6ed

Circuit
th.is

li,,

q

Grah:''lr

of

with

'tsort

this

routine

it

should

Plaintiff

nrprr:i

and

l

:

Cir.

r Lr
o n ^u

ri

He

clismissed

hls

lLe

in

adverse

-[rom being

_
aYnra<el

tne
r,

in

in

this

case.

parties
hedrd

Lourt
:ffnrrra4

effort
Judge

noLes
}1im

this

here
l-h6

that

conceal

fraud

the
f!'

I

thar

mucn

Order
f^

3

PLalntlff

ear\ra

fhaea

truth

^ lr -c- o r
u

I! Y'U

Lhe
t,.

/11l-h

205

this

Court

of

no evidence
prevenr

seeks

F.3d

given

r"{itn sore

c.ear

irrd^ac

rrnirl,.l

noL meL Lh.Ls

that

r{ould

Rule

1->1A

Inc.,

the

rs

thrs

mi c.-n.nrrCL.

clearly

nave

less

cfoses

l I
I

?.!'?n?

fashion,

in

obLained

^-hFr

has presented

matrer.

^nh^rf,rni

has

Epps and

Plaintiff

engaged in
on

to

has

Tankships,

Plainciff
conclusory

an

parLy

tr

Judge
are

i<

rhr^lra
ylvvst

mrrcl-

did

19-20.)

luu9crLLcrrL

l"a

KLrby

2000))

yel6tionship

professjonal
defendants

case

rr^

-

and if

irrdaomant-

--

and

Lhe judgment:

vacacing

m^\z.ht

I

Plaintiff

at

to

Flavenlh

er4

"-ytsv

(Id.

- F < pn t .i- i ^.

v.

Er\nq

17) .

1 \ \ l -h F

.l.F

Epps and

tolerated

adverse

^Tr

!,

for

f ha

Frederick

alleges,

be

i1\

an

e ran

Th^

1"217, 1-281 (11th cir.
burden.

Anihl

rhat

€r.,r.l

at

ri.rht

Wood's

Judge

irnnediately."

grounds

1 L)| \, .
L

his

116

Judge

T,t.l.la

(id.
not

m ^ 1 -L ri v ^
^
lLLv

evldence

(quoting

2AOl)

^^/n

wiLf

Rrr'la

/?1
\J/

pharme.\/_

NUaleer

Chief

ConducL"

two

/l-\l
\!/

of

14\.

be corrected

An

f hr^,r^l-.

that

deception

/

an

L3);

\

.],,\

convincing

\,a.di^t

cox

r^.
rlquu

\

ar

/ it n.
v

asserrs

/\\f

6 v / !F/ , 1 / ? \
vn \
\J/
\\Tn

of

the

(id.

"Code of

the

ear(,a

cruLh

6,1

of

:rrrl.leq

t-^

the

y

lAaa

J e l l v v f , v e f , v L r

him

Appeals

r-.)r<ni -:^,r

irrri<.ii.i-i^h

f ,

T .lFn-i \/F,'l Plairtiff

and

t^,.,:n^

conceal

vi-olation

^ar<^hal

qnnq
--

of

help

.^.l

K.
-^f

Court
to

I ar

and

to

the
Lhe
that

Plaintiff
convincing

have

vacated

("However.

I979)

acr.r-rich
^rrt

\7

Lor

F.2d

making

party

the

:n4

t-,,, -ro-r
jr

ardr^6.-r

mi <-^ndir.l

the

rule

f ':aud

hi<

marzinn

nart

\/

a

"

Rule

of

nartv

*3

1,782022, at

i rmil-\.,

becomes

Fhrt-

60(b) (4)

Procedure

r-:t--Fr.
o€
-ha

a.rrrf

-hc

Fvr-an1'rnn

claims
mFf T-Fr

thar
'

^n.l

Fi I ino

/ e

are

!!rrrr9

i,rrr

<dr

nf

Lrq

grounded

i . r i qr , ^ sl ,i . * iu, , rr4n ' r
J
v

Js,

" It]he

ri

disr.rict

h riJe
:r
inn

en

bc

such

this

and

far

ll^a

l

r'l r.r

'I s

en:l

nqr! r q q< rrer ^ n t r r
P
J

<lrl-\iF^t

shall

?R

Thus.
II

q

r-

l-ha

Crv.

i . r d gmenr
J *-

Aq

A
-

LhiS
n- - l
r -a-

Southern

Court

'
* - r nL a n a r y
..

District.

erl-1nil--'n..

h;meFff

-..ri

/an

ar

a-

th.ls
€

have original

P.

exceedinqfv

because

the

r.Atf

r,7r

.

-lF:r

law.
frr

of

q

?nl

frrn.'lAnr^---l

ls

inn

f he-cirrr

ralnran-i.e

.in Federal

ef l-Fr

void

sd'r-f

1n

a

rLLdy

L

irrriamanr-'

FED. R.
hrr

avan

irr-isdicr'on

l-n

f i nr'l

1?-1?T

No.

omitted)

irrri

cv nL ', P rn + r:rie t n '
r ql
v '

r

from

infirnities

Juq9rLlcrrL
nFrq.nA

L vur

.effcr-tcd

r:ise,,.i

quotations

A<

courrs

nnc

of

(.internal

rr-rnkecl

ir

lv

(quoting

2015)

marr

list

m a 1 -t c r

!rr

i c

-'-'

olain-ia.

G e o r o riqa
9

2I,

Apr.

rv

p lre. -rL . o .
'r
u

errhienr

Lauer,

l

infirmi

Id.
Plai^.iffr!'

,af r Ve

i r r v 9 r m L rn L -^a 'La -l

The

short

l:ckor!

Cir.

r. r -n- iJ. 4

fina].

frrl

adverse

that

provides

ren-psF.f

lerra-

i-s

f ha

(2)

and

must

L

(11th

\\ IAI

An /l-,) i 111

inf

or

the

that

f rom

S, E. C. v,

'relieve

motion

(I)

cir.

2

ra<a

"Federal

60(b) (3)

misconduct

other

r ho

LJJL.

-__r

or

2-19, 279_.79 (5rh

a\ri.t^nce

nnnr,:-^ih^

n
r a ra !
y 'z ou r v \ n r r rd s

ih-

P_Lvei'-.--9

'r

qa6 v--r

A"l.-rAn-A

1??1

|

q.li ^t:

rf

CourL

tO
With

Pl:intiff's

has

r . r h :- h

jurisdiction

sublect
hr.Vides

of

all

See Bonner v. City of Prichard,
Ala.,
661, Y.2d 7206, 120'7 (l1th Cir.
(holding
1981)
made on or before
septenber
Fifth
clrcuit
decisions
30,
1981, are br-rdi'rg precedenL in f-Ieventh Ci-cui!).

civil

acrions

the

United

cnrr-

arising
States,"

To

the

the

< rhie^r- rAfrF-

l:ckcd

inueresu,

under

Motion

discussed

Recusal

for

faws.

Plaintiff

extent

irr-r srli r:r ior

Lhe Courtr already

Plaintiff's

Const.iLut-ion,

or

L.reacies

a]leges

because

of

a

that

of

this

conflict

of

rh-is argumenr when addressing

and Motion

Transfer

to

(Doc.

Venue.

11 & 13.)
For

reasons,

these

Plaintiff's

motion

Plaintiff'
Thie

qF

I itire-lrq

a.'rrr-

i<

^y^^-rr

n^ial.\l

ha

tn

the

in

che
>n

fila

Court's

9,

.\f

,.ril-l-

fact

nnmn-

and the

prosecute appropriate.

h:

crrziI

n^rl-

i-rrlarir-

the

ad

Court

horai

\/

r|r-ldar

n

finds

:rerd

hiS

Civil

Rrrlg

was given

dismlssal

Ga. Dep't of

RICO,
Of

Plaintiff's

ro

lp.l

nr,')

the

Fador:r

fai

l.\\/

rFAs.r,

fn

brought

hrq

fa.-a,'l

cfaim.

Plaintiff

See i"iorthy v.

na

tha*

rr.if

RICo

l-rrrl- ha

2:05-cv-21"4, 2006 WL 91538, at *1

F.-

Court

a i n1-

r,,lehi

.rnn.rF

fhF

16ch Order,

^rrprdFd

e1-rf

DENIED.

fha

Lrq

nlead

April

not

q1/q-e'r

.^rr--

,.r'i-h

a

timefine,

61) is

.^^n;":nt

thF

nled

Procedure

ar!.ention

rr

others

Prosecute

pl:rrl-iff

^^m^'.r-+

davs

r.r-r

n:rrt.rFt

n-nrzrda.r

CiviI

to

:lur:rre

manv

(doc.

vacate

to

s Fai].ure

a^,,rf

and

t^

fourteen

-.'rnlv

for

WiLh

failure

to

H u m a nR e s . , N o .

(S.D. ca. Jan. 13, 2005) (Alaimo,

J. ) .

Even

if

Plaintiff's
discussed
$r-arnl

a

jrf

thaL
last

in
/-nnf

were
c.Laim

detaif
Ar.rq

in
r^ei-,'

not

the

case,

standing
the

due

ApriI

^^-^l,.e^-,.

the
to
16,
:l

Court
be
20L5

Ic.r:ii^.s

would

still

dismissed,
Order,
..1.1

find
As

was

P]a.intiff's
.ifa-i^n5

16

cases

ratF

an.l

facts
29.)

which

l-\r'
vl,

federal

hie

rhe

naFa^.1rhf

<

vsrL'rvs,t

is

/i^^e

Lo

nol-

forego

for

idenfifv

(Doc.

Civil

whiCh

28-

opportunity

the

to
a<

imn.1eod

her rr
v

rha-

hr.'

.rioirar

hiah

Yri

ear.Iy

59 at

tha

maar

the

in

wi1-h fhe

leFt

n^t

standards

dneq

Defendancs. "

decided

Court

some facts

hc

which

or

has

Ptaintiff

Dleadinq

.^m^t^inr

claims

L ur'r[Jf drrrL

rr.ir.lra<<arl

rdon

RICO.

conclusion

D.

r<A.'l

is

ro

Because
rJ

the

nf

naraoranl-s

app]v

he does present

while

and statures.

^^

DENIED.

Finally.
j-^

lha

His

because
rha

f^rad^ihd

motion

to

PlainLiff

n ! fi v r n. r l r c
vr ni' o '

remaining

cLa.im is

therefore

DIRECTED to

r

hereby

Dl:infifF'e

judgment

vacate
has

m.\f i^n

failed

nla:rjirn
rJrcoutr-v

to

file

all

6L)

is

also

62\

DENIED.

plaintiff'c

PRE,'UDICE.

pendingf

irinz-

an amended compfaint

r]ofinionnie<

DISMISSED WIIH

terminate

(doc.

qf :\/

fn

motions

case.

The

Cferk

is

and CLOSE this

s/
ORDER TNTERED aL

Augustaf

Georgia,

this

qoy

20L5

HONORAB
U NI T E D

TES DISTRICT JUDGE
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

aL

t1oy,