Jones v. Unknown Kentucky Department of Corrections Employees

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 23 Motion to award pain and suffering; Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 7/8/15. cc: Plaintiff (pro se)(DJT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
ALLEN JONES
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-P221-TBR

UNKNOWN KY. DEP’T OF CORRECTION EMPLOYEES et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Court dismissed this pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with prejudice by
Order entered May 2, 2011, for failure to state a claim and for seeking monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to award pain
and suffering (DN 23). He asks for $100,000,000 because the medical staff let him suffer for
five years.
Because final judgment has been entered, the Court construes this motion as one seeking
relief from final judgment, specifically under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1
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 adverse 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. The motion must be made within a
reasonable time, and for reasons (1)-(3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or
proceeding was entered. Relief under Rule 60(b) is “circumscribed by public policy favoring

1

Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a motion to alter or amend a final judgment to be filed but
only if brought within 28 days of the judgment.

finality of judgments and termination of litigation.” Waifersong Ltd., Inc. v. Classic Music
Vending, 976 F.2d 290, 292 (6th Cir. 1992).
Here, Plaintiff did not file this motion until over three and one-half years after the case
was dismissed. Thus, he is time-barred from invoking the first three grounds for relief, which
require the motion to be filed within one year of the judgment. The Rule requires a motion based
on the remaining three reasons to be filed within a reasonable time. Plaintiff offers no reason for
waiting well over three years to file this motion, and the Court finds that the more than three and
one-half year interval between this Court’s final judgment and the filing of this motion is an
unreasonable length of time. See Blachy v. Butcher, 129 F. App’x 173, 179 (6th Cir. 2005)
(holding that the plaintiff’s delay in filing her Rule 60(b)(6) motion until more than three years
had passed from the time the district court entered its order was unreasonable). Moreover,
nothing in Plaintiff’s motion suggests that he should be relieved from the judgment in this case.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (DN 23) is DENIED.
Date:

July 8, 2015

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4413.009

2