Daker v. Dozier et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying 25 Motion to Vacate ; denying 30 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/2/2019. (pts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

WASEEM DAKER,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*

V.

*

CV 618-032

*

COMMISSIONER GREGORY DOZIER,
et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Waseem Daker's
Motion to Vacate (doc. 25) and Supplemental Rule 59(e) Motion (doc.
30).

For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motions are DENIED.
Plaintiff

Department

of

was

an

inmate

Corrections

from

commencement of this action in
Plaintiff,

a

Muslim,

in

asserted

the

custody

October

March

2012

2018.

numerous

of

the

Georgia

through

(Compl., Doc.

claims

arising

the
1.)
from

incidences where he was forced to shave his beard in contravention

of his religious beliefs.

(Compl., at 61-62.)

The Court dismissed

all of the claims in its March 29, 2019 Order adopting the United

States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations.

(Doc. 23.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motions seeking relief from the Court's
March 29^^ Order and the Clerk's entry of judgment.

To begin. Plaintiff filed his motions citing Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e), which requires such motions to be filed
within twenty-eight days of the entry of judgment.

The Clerk

entered judgment on March 29, 2019, but Plaintiff did not file the
instant motions until May of 2019.

Consequently, his motions are

converted into a Rule 60(b) motion.

See Mahone v. Ray, 326 F.3d

1176, 1177 n.l (11th Cir. 2003) (''Here, because it was not filed

within

10

days

of

the

district

court's

entry

of

judgment,

[movant's] motion is cognizable only as a motion for relief from

judgment pursuant to [Rule 60(b)]."); see also Finch v. City of
Vernon, 845 F.2d 256, 258-59 (11th Cir. 1988) (comparing Rule 59(e)

and Rule 60(b) motions and noting "the style of a motion is not
controlling").
Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

60(b)

permits

courts

relieve a party from final judgment for six reasons:
1) mistake,
neglect;

inadvertence,

surprise,

or

excusable

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, or misconduct by an
opposing party;
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

to

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).

"Rule 60(b) was never intended to permit parties to relitigate
the

merits

of

claims

or

defenses,

or

to

raise

new

claims

or

defenses that could have been asserted during the litigation of
the case."

Gonzales v. Sec^y for Dep^t of Corr., 366 F.3d 1253,

1291-92 (11th Cir. 2004).

Plaintiff attempts to do exactly that;

his motions are best characterized as responses to the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendations and this Court's Order adopting
them. The motions present none of the six grounds for relief from
judgment specified in Rule 60(b).

Based on the foregoing

and

upon due consideration, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions (docs. 25, 30) are DENIED.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this
2019.

STATES DISTRICT

SOUTHERN

COURT

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA