Wright v. Avoyelles Correctional Center

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 37 Motion for Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 33 Motion for Reconsideration re 32 Order. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 7/12/2016. (crt,Haik, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
BENJAMIN F. WRIGHT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-2813

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

NATHAN CAIN

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court are Petitioner Benjamin F. Wright’s (“Wright”) Motion for
Reconsideration (Record Document 33) and Motion for Ruling on Motion for
Reconsideration (Record Document 37). The Motion for Ruling (Record Document 37) is
hereby GRANTED, as the Court makes the following ruling as to Wright’s Motion for
Reconsideration.
Wright’s Motion for Reconsideration is filed pursuant to Rule 60(b). He references
“mistakes” under Rule 60(b)(1) and asks that this Court’s to void/reconsider its April 14,
2016 Memorandum Order, which denied his motion for relief from judgment or order
regarding the State of Louisiana ’s Motion to Stay. See Record Documents 27, 28 & 32.
The State of Louisiana has opposed the instant motion to reconsider. See Record
Document 35.
Rule 60 (b) provides:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons:
(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.

F.R.C.P. 60(b). The scope of review under Rule 60(b) is narrower than on a direct appeal.
See Aucoin v. K-Mart Apparel Fashion Corp., 943 F.2d 6, 8 (5th Cir.1991). Rule 60(b)
allows the district court to “correct obvious errors or injustices.” Fackelman v. Bell, 564
F.2d 734, 736 (5th Cir.1977). The movant on a Rule 60(b) motion must show “unusual or
unique circumstances.” Pryor v. U.S. Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 286 (5th Cir.1985).
Relief under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy, as “the desire for a judicial process that
is predictable mandates caution in reopening judgments.” In re Pettle, 410 F.3d 189, 191
(5th Cir.2005), quoting Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1007 (5th Cir.1998).
As stated in its April 14, 2016 order denying Wright’s motion for relief from judgment
or order, this Court finds that Wright has not shown mistake or any other basis for the stay
order to be void. He simply has not demonstrated unusual or unique circumstances
warranting Rule 60(b) relief. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Wright’s Motion for Reconsideration for Ruling [on] Motion for
Relief from Judgment or Order (Record Document 33) be and is hereby DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana, this the 12th day of July,
2016.

Page 2 of 2