TAYLOR v. BUTTS et al

Filing 90

ENTRY denying Plaintiff's 88 Motion for Court Assistance; denying Plaintiff's 89 Motion for Court's Information. See Entry for details. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/13/2017. (SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

CHARLES MACK TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HURST c/o, WRIGHT c/o, BIAS c/o,
OFFICER ALTMAN, OFFICER STONE and
OFFICER LETSTER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15-cv-00874-TWP-MPB

ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Charles Mack Taylor’s (“Taylor”) Motion for
Court Information (Dkt. 89) and Motion for Court’s Assistance (Dkt. 88). In his filings, Taylor
appears to argue that the Court did not fully consider his evidence in ruling on the motion for
summary judgment. Accordingly, these filings are treated as a motion for relief from judgment
pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civl Procedure. Rule 60 authorizes a district court
to “correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is
found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” Id. “Relief under Rule 60(b) is an
extraordinary remedy granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Nelson v. Napolitano, 657
F.3d 586, 589 (7th Cir. 2011). Rule 60(b) allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(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 (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 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
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Taylor has not shown his entitlement to relief from the judgment on any of these grounds.
In this case, the Defendants’ filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Taylor
failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies. Summary judgment was granted because
Taylor had not shown that he filed an appeal of his formal grievance or notified appropriate
prison personnel that he did not receive a response to his grievance. In the current motions,
Taylor argues that he did provide evidence that he “took the appropriate steps after not receiving
a response to his grievance” and that the failure to respond to his grievances made the grievance
process unavailable to him. But Taylor still has not shown that he properly appealed the failure
to respond to his formal grievance, which is a requirement of the grievance procedure.
Accordingly, he has shown no error in the Court’s ruling. His post-judgment motions, (Dkt. 88
and Dkt. 89) are therefore denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 6/13/2017

Electronic distribution to counsel of record via CM/ECF and by U.S. mail to:
CHARLES MACK TAYLOR
994511
WABASH VALLEY - CF
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
CARLISLE, IN 47838