MYERS v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 23 Motion for Relief pursuant to Rule 60. (S.O.). Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/1/2015. (MAC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
JASON TYE MYERS,
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00471-TWP-MJD
Entry on Plaintiff’s Rule 60 Motion
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff, Jason T. Myers, pro se, Motion for Relief from
Judgment. (Dkt. 23). Judgment dismissing Mr. Myers action was entered on the docket on August
11, 2015, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Dkt. 19). Mr. Myers timely
filed a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on August 28, 2015. (Dkt. 21). That motion was denied on September 1, 2015. (Dkt.
22). On September 14, 2015, the plaintiff filed the instant motion under the Federal Rules of Civil
procedure Rule 60(a) and (d). He argues that the Court’s rulings in this case and on his Rule 59
motion amount to a manifest error of law and fact.
Rule 60(a) authorizes a district court to “correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from
oversight or omission….” Id. “[I]f the flaw lies in the translation of the original meaning to the
judgment, then Rule 60(a) allows a correction; [but] if the judgment captures the original meaning
but is infected by error, then the parties must seek another source of authority to correct the
mistake.” Shuffle Tech Intern., LLC v. Wolff Gaming, Inc., 757 F.3d 708, 710 (7th Cir. 2014)
(internal quotation omitted). Here, there was no error in the translation of the judgment, so the
plaintiff’s Rule 60(a) motion is denied.
Rule 60(d)(3) provides that every district court is entitled to “set aside a judgment for fraud
on the court.” The plaintiff alleges no fraud on the Court. Rather, he presents the same argument
that the Court’s decision in this case was manifestly wrong. The Court need not address each of
the reasons on which a motion might be granted under Rule 60(b), because the plaintiff does not
assert that any of those reasons apply.
The plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and he
has not shown a basis for relief from judgment in his Rule 60 motion. Therefore, his Rule 60(a)
and (d) motion [dkt. 23] must be denied.
The following notice is provided for the plaintiff’s information: if his Rule 60 motion was
filed within 28 days after the judgment was entered in this case, his 30 day time to file a notice of
appeal would run from the date this Entry is issued. Based on the filing date only, the Rule 60
motion was not filed within 28 days of the judgment. The Court cannot determine whether the
plaintiff benefits from the prison “mailbox rule” because he did not state in his motion under
penalty of perjury when he placed it in the prison internal mail system and whether he prepaid
first-class postage. Otherwise, the plaintiff’s 30 day time to file a notice of appeal runs from
September 1, 2015, the date his Rule 59 motion was denied. See Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JASON T. MYERS 154417
PLAINFIELD CORRECTION FACILITY
727 Moon Road
Plainfield, IN 46168
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?