ARMALIN, et al. v. HENRY COUNTY JAIL, et al.
ENTRY - 11 Motion to reopen is denied. The plaintiff is reminded that this action was dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, this ruling does not prevent him from filing a new lawsuit based on these claims. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/26/2017. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff) (MEJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HENRY COUNTY JAIL,
BRENT GRIDER Lt. Commander Henry
ELLA Officer Henry County Jail,
SGT. MILLER Officer Henry County Jail,
MADNA Officer Henry County Jail,
MORE Officer Henry County Jail,
DOBB Officer Henry County Jail,
OFFICER CLARK Officer Henry County Jail,
This case was dismissed without prejudice on July 19, 2017, based on the plaintiff’s
failure to pay the initial partial filing fee or show cause why the case should not be dismissed for
failure to pay. Specifically, the plaintiff was assessed an initial partial filing fee on March 20,
2017. When he did not pay, he was given an extension of time to pay and provided the
opportunity to show cause why the case should be dismissed. He did not respond to those
directions and the case was dismissed.
The plaintiff now asks the Court to reopen the case. Because it was filed more than 28
days after entry of judgment, his motion is treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment
under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “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.
The plaintiff has not shown that any of these ground for relief are present here. He was
reminded of his obligation to pay and instructed to show cause why the case should not be
dismissed and did not respond to these directions. These are not the circumstances in which relief
under Rule 60(b) is warranted. The motion to reopen, dkt. , is denied. The plaintiff is
reminded that this action was dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, this ruling does not
prevent him from filing a new lawsuit based on these claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
GRANT COUNTY JAIL - IN
214 E. Fourth Street
MARION, IN 46953
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?