Armstrong v. DPS& C Corrections Services

Filing 22

RULING AND ORDER: The Court interprets these late-filed documents (record documents 10 and 11 ) collectively as a Motion for Relief from Judgment brought pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs Motion for Relief from Judgment is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 10/5/2020. (KMW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CALEB ARMSTRONG (#701443)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
ELAYN HUNT, ET AL.

NO. 20-00184-BAJ-EWD
RULING AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se Amended Complaint
(Doc. 10), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 11), each filed
after entry of final judgment in the above-captioned action. The Court interprets
these late-filed documents collectively as a Motion for Relief from Judgment brought
pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Motion shall be
denied.
Plaintiff filed his original action on March 18, 2020. (Doc. 1). On
March 31, 2020, this Court advised Plaintiff that his pleadings were deficient and
that he must cure those deficiencies within 21 days or his suit would be subject to
dismissal. (Doc. 3). On May 21, 2020, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s action without
prejudice for failure to properly cure the deficiencies that were noted. (Docs. 6). On
May 21, the Court also issued its Final Judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s action.
(Doc. 7).
On June 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed the documents comprising the instant Motion.

1

(Docs. 10, 11).1
Rule 60(b) provides that relief from a judgment or order may be had for (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, (2) newly discovered evidence,
(3) fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct by an opposing party, (4) a void judgment,
(5) a judgment that has already been satisfied, is no longer equitable, or has
effectively been overturned, or (6) any other reason that justifies such relief. Plaintiff
has not provided any factual assertions which would support the applicability of any
of the first five subsections of Rule 60(b).
Further, to the extent that Plaintiff’s pleading may be interpreted as seeking
relief under the catch-all provision of Rule 60(b)(6), the Motion fares no better. This
provision allows a Court to vacate a judgment for “any other reason that justifies such
relief” and provides a residual clause meant to cover unforeseen contingencies and to
accomplish justice in exceptional circumstances. Steverson v. GlobalSantaFe Corp.,
508 F.3d 300, 303 (5th Cir. 2007). The relief afforded by Rule 60(b)(6) is meant to be
extraordinary relief, and it requires that the moving party make a showing of
extraordinary circumstances justifying such relief. Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212, 216,
(5th Cir. 2002). In the instant motion, Plaintiff has made no showing of unusual or

unique circumstances to support the application of Rule 60(b)(6).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment

Both prior to and after the May 21 Judgment, Plaintiff mailed numerous documents to the
Court that were returned for failure to comply with Local Rule 5(d)(1). Accordingly, these
documents are not considered.
1

2

(Docs. 10, 11) is hereby DENIED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 5th day of October, 2020

_____________________________________
JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3