JENKINS v. KNIGHT et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 39 Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (S.O.). Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/26/2014. (MGG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MARK A. JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT WENDY
KNIGHT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:13-cv-0099-TWP-MJD

ENTRY
This action was dismissed without prejudice on December 2, 2013, when the defendants’
motion for summary judgment was granted on the basis that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his
available administrative remedies.
On December 16, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to
Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b)(1) provides that the Court may
relieve a party from a final judgment for reasons of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect.
The plaintiff argues that the administrative procedures at the prison are non-existent when
money damages are sought. More specifically, he contends that the prison has a policy that a
grievance may be returned to the offender if it “concerns a matter beyond the power of the
Department and its contractors to remedy.” As pointed out by the defendants, however, this
language does not pertain to grievances seeking money damages, and, in fact, the plaintiff has
exhausted the grievance process regarding other complaints in which he sought money damages.
The issues of monetary relief and the availability of administrative remedies were discussed and
decided in the defendants’ favor in the ruling on the motion for summary judgment. “Exhaustion

is necessary even if the prisoner is requesting relief that the relevant administrative review board
has no power to grant, such as monetary damages, or if the prisoner believes that exhaustion is
futile.” Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 808-09 (7th Cir. 2006).
A Rule 60(b) motion does not provide a vehicle for simply rehashing the issues that have
already been resolved and taking a second bite at the apple. The plaintiff has not shown that any
of the Rule 60(b)(1) grounds for relief are present. Accordingly, his Rule 60(b)(1) motion for
relief from judgment [dkt. no. 39] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

02/26/2014
Date: __________________
Distribution:
Mark Jenkins
#963737
Correctional Industrial Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
5124 West Reformatory Rd.
Pendleton, IN 46064
All electronically registered counsel

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana