Armour v. Harrington

Filing 13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Armour's motion for relief from judgment (Doc. 12 ) is GRANTED in all respects. Accordingly, the Court's Order dated October 22, 2013, dismissing the action (Doc. 8 ), the judgment (Doc. 9 ) and the O rder directing payment of the $400 filing fee (Doc. 11 ) are VACATED. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE THIS CASE; no judgment is required. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall REFUND four hundred dollars ($400) to Armour's prison trust fund account. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 12/2/2013. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DEMETRIUS ARMOUR, # M06329,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WARDEN HARRINGTON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-cv-00983-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
On September 24, 2013, an official at Menard Correctional Center electronically
filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/14-101 (Doc. 1) and related
preliminary motions (Docs. 2-4) on behalf of inmate Demetrius Armour. On preliminary review,
the petition was dismissed with prejudice for lack of federal jurisdiction; various preliminary
motions were denied as moot (Doc. 8); and Armour was ordered to pay the $400 filing fee (Doc.
11). Judgment was entered accordingly (Doc. 9).
Armour is now before the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b) seeking relief from judgment (Doc. 12). He explains that the petition and motions were
erroneously filed in federal court, rather than in state court. He attaches what purports to be a
letter from the responsible prison official, stating that the documents were mistakenly filed in
federal court. The letter is not signed, but it does bear the official scan stamp from the prison
official involved. Armour also notes that the original documents did reference Randolph County
in the captions, although the “Southern Circuit” is also in the caption.

Page 1 of 3

Rule 60(b) permits a court to relieve a party from an order or judgment based on
such grounds as mistake, surprise or excusable neglect by the movant; fraud or misconduct by
the opposing party; newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered within the
28-day deadline for filing a Rule 59(b) motion; a judgment that is void or has been discharged;
or for any other reason that justifies relief. However, the reasons offered by a movant for setting
aside a judgment under Rule 60(b) must be something that could not have been employed to
obtain a reversal by direct appeal. See, e.g., Bell v. Eastman Kodak Co., 214 F.3d 798, 801 (7th
Cir. 2000) (“A collateral attack on a final judgment is not a permissible substitute for appealing
the judgment within the time, standardly 30 days, for appealing the judgment of a federal district
court.”); Parke-Chapley Constr. Co. v. Cherrington, 865 F.2d 907, 915 (7th Cir. 1989) (“an
appeal or motion for new trial, rather than a FRCP 60(b) motion, is the proper avenue to redress
mistakes of law committed by the trial judge, as distinguished from clerical mistakes caused by
inadvertence, especially where the FRCP 60(b) motion is filed after the time for appeal has
expired”).
Armour is entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), due to the mistake and
inadvertence. Therefore, the Court’s Order dated October 22, 2013, dismissing the action (Doc.
8), the judgment (Doc. 9) and the Order directing payment of the $400 filing fee (Doc. 11) shall
all be vacated.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), this action shall be

dismissed without prejudice and the case will be administratively closed.
A review of the record reveals that the $400 filing fee has been received (Doc.
11/13/2013). Therefore, the Clerk of Court shall refund $400 to Armour’s prison trust fund
account.

Page 2 of 3

Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff
Armour’s motion for relief from judgment (Doc. 12) is GRANTED in all respects. Accordingly,
the Court’s Order dated October 22, 2013, dismissing the action (Doc. 8), the judgment (Doc. 9)
and the Order directing payment of the $400 filing fee (Doc. 11) are VACATED. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The
Clerk of Court shall CLOSE THIS CASE; no judgment is required.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall REFUND four
hundred dollars ($400) to Armour’s prison trust fund account.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 2, 2013

s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3