Parfait v. Nurse Dominque et al
Filing
28
ORDER AND REASONS denying 21 Motion relief from judgment.. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 6/5/2018. (cg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
HARRISON A. PARFAIT, JR.
VERSUS
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 17-738
MS. DOMINQUE, ET AL.
SECTION “R” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff Harrison A. Parfait, Jr. moves for relief from judgment.1 For
the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
On October 3, 2016, Parfait filed a complaint pro se against Dominique
Baio and Renee Lirette (identified as Ms. Dominique and Ms. Renea in the
complaint) in the Western District of Louisiana.2 The case was transferred
to this district on January 30, 2017. Defendants are nurses at the Terrebonne
Parish Criminal Justice Complex. Parfait alleges that he suffers from sleep
apnea and needs to be treated with a CPAP machine, or risks suffering a heart
attack.3 According to Parfait, he did not receive proper medical attention at
R. Doc. 21.
R. Doc. 1. This case is related to Parfait’s lawsuit against Terrebonne
Parish Consolidated Government, Case No. 16-16362.
3
Id. at 3.
1
2
the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex even though he told
defendants about his condition.4
On May 8, 2017, after the Court was notified that Parfait was no longer
incarcerated at the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex, the
Magistrate Judge issued an order directing Parfait to notify the Court of his
current address by June 8, 2017.5 Parfait failed to do so, and the Magistrate
Judge recommended dismissing the complaint sua sponte for failure to
prosecute.6
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation and dismissed Parfait’s complaint without prejudice on
August 8, 2017.7
On March 21, 2018, Parfait moved for relief from judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).8
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A district court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion under
Rule 60(b). Lyles v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc., 871 F.3d 305,
4
5
6
7
8
Id.
R. Doc. 13.
R. Doc. 15.
R. Doc. 17.
R. Doc. 21.
2
315 (5th Cir. 2017). Rule 60(b) permits a court to grant relief from a final
judgment or order only upon a showing of one of the following:
(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).
III. DISCUSSION
Parfait seeks to reopen his case after the Court dismissed it for failure
to prosecute. Parfait argues that relief from judgment is necessary because
he neither received proper notice of the circumstances under which his
complaint was dismissed, nor was informed as to how to prevent its
dismissal. It appears that Parfait was transferred from the Terrebonne
Parish Criminal Justice Complex in April or May 2017, and did not receive
copies of the Magistrate Judge’s May 8 order, the Magistrate Judge’s Report
3
and Recommendation, or the Court’s order dismissing the complaint. These
documents were returned as undeliverable.9
But this lack of notice was caused by Parfait’s own negligence. Parfait
failed to inform the Court of his new address. This was a violation of Local
Rule 11.1, which states: “Each attorney and pro se litigant has a continuing
obligation promptly to notify the court of any address or telephone number
change.”
Relief under Rule 60(b)(1) may be appropriate when the plaintiff’s
negligence in failing to prosecute his case was excusable. In Louisiana v.
Sparks, 978 F.2d 226 (5th Cir. 1992), for example, the Fifth Circuit noted
that a party’s failure to prosecute was an understandable mistake in light of
a “confusing procedural posture,” and held that the district court abused its
discretion in not reopening the case. Id. at 233. But relief from judgment
for excusable neglect is far from automatic. “The party must make some
showing justifying the failure to avoid the mistake or inadvertence.” Wright
& Miller, 11 Federal Practice and Procedure § 2858 (3d ed. 2018); see also
Pryor v. U.S. Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 1985) (“Implicit in the
fact that Rule 60(b)(1) affords extraordinary relief is the requirement that
9
See R. Docs. 14, 16, 17, 18.
4
the movant make a sufficient showing of unusual or unique circumstances
justifying such relief.”).
Parfait fails to explain why he did not inform the Court of his new
address. Moreover, Parfait fails to explain why he waited over eight months
since judgment was entered—and almost a year since he was transferred—
before taking an affirmative step in this litigation. Cf. Silas v. Sears, Roebuck
& Co., 586 F.2d 382 (5th Cir. 1978) (holding that the district court abused its
discretion in denying Rule 60(b) motion, when motion was filed before
deadline to appeal district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute).
Although courts are solicitous of pro se litigants, Parfait does not offer any
explanation whatsoever for his negligence. Thus, the Court finds that relief
under Rule 60(b)(1) is not appropriate.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment
is DENIED.
5th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of June, 2018.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?