Castro v. Morris et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson III denying 28 Motion to "File exibit of"; denying 25 26 27 Motions to reconsider.cc: Plaintiff (pro se); Defendants (JLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
RUTH CASTRO
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12CV-74-S
HON. JUDGE GEOFFREY MORRIS et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are two letters (DNs 25 & 26) and two motions (DNs 27 & 28) filed by
Plaintiff. The Court construes the letters (DNs 25 & 26) as motions to reconsider.
Motions To Reconsider, DNs 25, 26 & 27
This is the third time that the Court has addressed motions to reconsider filed by Plaintiff.
With these new motions, Plaintiff has filed two CDs which she contends support her allegations
of “unethical, illigal, criminal actions” taken against her predominately by Patty Echsner and
Michael McIntyre of the “PD Office.” She asks the Court to listen to the CDs and to reopen her
case.
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides relief from judgment in six
instances: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an opposing party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or (6) any other
reasons justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. “[T]he party seeking relief under
Rule 60(b) bears the burden of establishing the grounds for such relief by clear and convincing
evidence.” Info-Hold, Inc. v. Sound Merch., Inc., 538 F.3d 448, 454 (6th Cir. 2008). Relief
under Rule 60(b) may only be granted in exceptional circumstances. McAlpin v. Lexington 76
Auto Truck Stop, Inc., 229 F.3d 491, 502-03 (6th Cir. 2000). “Relief under Rule 60(b), moreover
is ‘circumscribed by public policy favoring finality of judgments and termination of litigation.’”
Doe v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov’t, 407 F.3d 755, 760 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Waifersong Ltd. v. Classic Music Vending, 976 F.2d 290, 292 (6th Cir. 1992)). To succeed
under Rule 60(b)(2) based on newly discovered evidence, the “movant must demonstrate (1) that
[she] exercised due diligence in obtaining the information and (2) [that] the evidence is material
and controlling and clearly would have produced a different result if presented before the
original judgment.” Good v. Ohio Edison Co., 149 F.3d 413, 423 (6th Cir. 1998) (quotation
marks and citation omitted). The newly discovered evidence may not be “merely impeaching or
cumulative.” Id. In the present case, Plaintiff fails to meet her burden under Rule 60(b). She
fails to state when the new evidence upon which she relies was discovered. Plaintiff fails to set
forth any facts to support that she exercised due diligence in obtaining the new evidence.
Further, the motions and CDs filed by Plaintiff do not contain material and controlling evidence
that would have resulted in a different judgment. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion under
Rule 60(b)(2) fails.
Rule 60(b)(6) gives the Court broad authority to grant relief if justice requires; however,
it can only do so in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances not addressed by the first five
clauses of the rule. See Hopper v. Euclid Manor Nursing Home, 867 F.2d 291, 294 (6th Cir.
1989) (“This Circuit adheres to the view that courts should apply Rule 60(b)(6) only in
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which are not addressed by the first five numbered
clauses of the Rule.”). Plaintiff also fails to present extraordinary circumstances which would
allow relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
2
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to reconsider (DNs 25, 26 & 27) are DENIED.
Motion To “File exibit of,” DN 28
Plaintiff has filed a motion with this Court in which she describes a “suspicious white
van [with] Back Tinted window park in Back of my ‘now’ home.” According to Plaintiff the
people in the van watched her house, and when Plaintiff went outside “they move slowly like to
intimidated me, passing the Back of the house . . . .” This encounter disturbed Plaintiff enough
to compel her to call the police. However, the police arrived after the van left. Plaintiff states
that she has unsuccessfully requested video from a nearby school. She further states, “I am
Respectfully informing the court of this activity for my families protection as well as my
protection.”
As Plaintiff has no pending action in this Court and this Court is without jurisdiction over
the matter described in Plaintiff’s motion, the motion (DN 28) is DENIED.
Date: September 11, 2013
C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4411.003
3
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?