WILLIAMS v. KNIGHT
ENTRY - The motion for ruling on motion 18 is denied as moot because the court ruled on the motion referenced therein on September 6, 2012. In order for a Rule 60(b) movant to obtain the relief requested, he must show that he had both grounds for relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(5), and a meritorious claim or defense. Williams' motion for relief from judgment 20 does not show either of these circumstances. That motion 20 is therefore denied. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/10/2012. (RSF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
The motion for ruling on motion  is denied as moot because the court
ruled on the motion referenced therein on September 6, 2012.
This action for a writ of habeas corpus brought by Joseph Williams
challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISF 11-10-0234 was
dismissed as moot because Williams is no longer in custody pursuant to the
sanctions imposed in that proceeding. Judgment was entered on the clerk’s docket
on July 18, 2012.
“Rule 60 of the FED. R. CIV. P. regulates the procedure for obtaining relief
from final judgments.” Arrieta v. Battaglia, 461 F.3d 861, 864 (7th Cir. 2006)(citing
Wesco Prods. Co. v. Alloy Auto. Co., 880 F.2d 981, 983 (7th Cir. 1989)). Williams
filed such a motion on September 7, 2012.
Rule 60(b) enables a court to grant relief from a judgment under the
particular circumstances listed in the rule. Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of Gen.
Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir. 1995). Those are:
(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.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Relief from judgment under Rule 60 is warranted "only upon a
showing of extraordinary circumstances that create substantial danger that the
underlying judgment was unjust." Margoles v. Johns, 798 F.2d 1069, 1073 (7th Cir.
1986); see also United States v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 299, 301 (7th Cir.
1992)(explaining that a post-judgment motion "must be shaped to the specific
grounds for modification or reversal found in 60(b)--they cannot be general pleas for
Williams’ contention is that counsel for the respondent manipulated the
development of the action to cause Williams’ claim to become moot. He does not
dispute that the claim is moot or that it was moot when the court made its decision.
As noted above, Williams did not reply to the motion to dismiss even though he had
an opportunity to do so. In fact, Williams had sought and received an extension of
time in which to do so. His present concerns could have been raised in a reply to the
motion to dismiss. They were not. Williams contends that the court made a mistake
in its ruling, but the court does not find this contention to be supported by the
record or by Williams’ motion itself.
In order for a Rule 60(b) movant to obtain the relief requested, he must show
that he had both grounds for relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(5), and a meritorious
claim or defense. Breuer Electric Mfg. Co. v. Toronado Systems of America, Inc., 687
F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1982). Williams’ motion for relief from judgment  does
not show either of these circumstances. That motion  is therefore denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Plainfield S.T.O.P. Facility
501 West Main Street
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?