DICKERSON v. ADAMS

Filing 87

ORDER denying 86 Motion to Demand Grand Jury Trial. To the extent the Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel, that request is denied. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/22/2020. (pts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

THOMAS RAY DICKERSON,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*
*

V.

*

CV 617-109

*

WARDEN ROBERT ADAMS; WARDEN

*

ADAM JORDAN; and NURSE FNU
PEACOCK,

*
*

Defendants

ORDER

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Thomas Ray Dickerson's ""motion

demand grand jury trial."
of

relief,

including

a

(Doc. 86.)

request

for

The motion seeks various forms
an

appointment

of

counsel,

generally restates Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claims.

but

Pro se

filings are given liberal construction,^ and therefore Plaintiff's motion
is construed as one for relief from judgment.

(Docs. 83-84.)

Plaintiff's motion is best considered under Rule 60(b) rather than

Rule 59 because it was filed over twenty-eight days after the Order it
seeks reconsideration of.

(11th

Cir.

2003);

See Mahone v. Ray, 326 F.3d 1176, 1178 n.l

Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e)

(providing

twenty-eight

day

deadline post-judgment for the filing of motions pursuant to the rule).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits courts to relieve a party

from final judgment for six reasons:
1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

See Hainesv. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)

2} newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,
could not have been discovered in time to move for a new

trial under Rule 59(b);

3) fraud, . . . misrepresentation,
opposing party;

or

misconduct

by

an

4) the judgment is void;
5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed
or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer
equitable; or
6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. p. 60(b).

"Motions under [Rule 60(b)] are directed to the

sound discretion of the district court."

Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp.,

722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff has not stated any of the above grounds.
motion (Doc. 86) is DENIED.

Therefore, his

To the extent he seeks an appointment of

counsel, that request is DENIED for the reasons previously explained.
(See Doc. 80.)

Plaintiff is reminded that his case was dismissed without

prejudice, meaning that if he wishes to further pursue the claims in

this case, he may do so by initiating a new lawsu^.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia thi5r::3i<2^^ day of October, 2020.

J. RAN

L

HllEF JUDGE

UNITED^TATES ^STRICT COURT
SOUTil&f(N DISTRICT OF GEORGIA