Tassin v. Cain et al

Filing 10

ORDER: The 9 Correspondence received from the Plaintiff is interpreted by the Court to be a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs 9 motion be and it is hereby GRANTED. The Court's 7 Ruling and 8 Judgment of November 10, 2015, be and they are hereby VACATED, and this action is hereby REINSTATED on the Court's Docket. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 11/30/2015. (BCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ROBERT TASSIN (#117747)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
N. BURL CAIN, ET AL.

NO. 15-570-BAJ-SCR
O R D E R

Before the Court is correspondence received from the Plaintiff
(R. Doc. 9) that the Court interprets to be a motion for relief
from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Pursuant to Order dated September 29, 2015 (R. Doc. 6), the
Court granted the Plaintiff’s Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
and directed the Plaintiff to pay, within twenty-one (21) days, an
initial partial filing fee in the amount of $13.65, “or this action
shall be dismissed.”

On November 10, 2015, upon the Plaintiff’s

apparent failure to respond to the Court’s directive, the Court
dismissed the above-captioned proceeding.

See R. Docs. 7 and 8.

The Plaintiff now asserts that this proceeding should not have been
dismissed.

Specifically, he asserts that, at his request, his

mother timely forwarded a money order in the correct amount to the
Clerk of Court in October, 2015, in payment of the Court’s initial
partial filing fee.

In support of this assertion, the Plaintiff

attached a copy of correspondence purportedly signed by his mother
and dated October 8, 2015, which appears to be an attempt by his

mother to forward the referenced money order in the amount of
$13.65.
received

See R. Doc. 9 at p. 3.
by

the

Clerk

of

Although the payment was not

Court,

the

Plaintiff

prays

for

reinstatement of this proceeding on the Court’s Docket.
Upon a review of the record and the Plaintiff’s submission,
the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s motion should be granted.
Specifically, it appears that the Plaintiff attempted to timely
comply with the Court’s Order, but the correspondence and money
order forwarded by his mother in October, 2015, was addressed to a
post office address for the Court that was once valid but is no
longer utilized by the Court.

As a result, although the Court did

not receive the forwarded payment, it appears that the Plaintiff’s
failure to timely deliver the initial partial fee may be attributed
to excusable neglect.

In addition, the record reflects that the

initial partial filing fee in the amount of $13.65 has now been
paid.
Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., the Court may relieve
a

party

neglect.”

from

a

final

judgment

upon

a

showing

of

“excusable

In the interest of justice and in the exercise of the

Court’s discretion, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has met this
criterion and that his motion should be granted, and this action
should be reinstated on the Court’s docket.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion (R. Doc. 9) be and
it is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s Ruling and Judgment of
November 10, 2015 (R. Docs. 7 and 8), be and they are hereby
VACATED, and this action is hereby REINSTATED on the Court’s
Docket.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 30th day of November, 2015.

BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT