Omran v. Prator et al

Filing 106

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 105 Motion for Relief from Court Judgment. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 1/17/2017. (crt,Keifer, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
MOHAMMED AHMED HASSAN
ABDALLAH OMRAN

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2426-P

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

STEVE PRATOR, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Abdallah Omran’s
(“Omran”) “Motion for Relief from Court Judgment” (Record Document 105). Omran seeks
relief from the Court’s January 6, 2016, Judgment (Record Document 86) adopting
Magistrate Judge Hornsby’s Report and Recommendations (Record Document 75),
which recommended denying Omran’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granting the
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Omran appealed the Court’s Judgment to
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Record Document 88. The fees for the appeal have
been paid, and the appeal is pending before the Fifth Circuit. See Record Document 97.
Omran seeks relief from the Court’s Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60, on the ground that he “inadvertently did not include his Equal Protection
claim in his motion for summary judgment.” Record Document 105. He argues that “the
Fifth Circuit recently ruled on the case,” causing him to realize his mistake in failing to
include this claim in his Motion for Summary Judgment. Id. He argues that the fact that
he is a pro se detainee untrained in the law and without the same legal materials available
to attorneys constituted the kind of “inadvertence, mistake, and excusable neglect”
necessary for the Court to relieve him of the effects of its Judgment under Rule 60(b)(1).

Omran’s pro se status does not relieve him of the obligation to comply with
procedural rules, including the requirement that a party include all bases for summary
judgment in the Motion for Summary Judgment. See Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593
(5th Cir. 1981) (“the right of self-representation does not exempt a party from compliance
with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law”); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. As such,
the Court finds that his pro se status, lack of training in the law, and lack of access to all
of the materials available to attorneys do not constitute the type of “inadvertence, mistake,
and excusable neglect” needed for a successful Rule 60 Motion. The Court retains
discretion in ruling on such a Motion, and it declines to relieve Omran of the effect of his
earlier error. See Johnson v. Masonic Bldg. Co., 138 F.2d 817, 818 (5th Cir. 1943).
Additionally, Omran is mistaken that the Fifth Circuit recently ruled on this case. It
appears Omran may be referring to the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in his other case against
officials at the Caddo Correctional Center, Omran v. Metrejean, 643 Fed. Appx. 339 (5th
Cir. 2016), in which the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of his complaint in that case. The
Docket Sheet in the instant action demonstrates that the Fifth Circuit has not yet ruled on
Omran’s appeal. A Rule 60(b) Motion is not a substitute for appeal. See Providential Dev.
Co. v. United States Steel Co., 236 F.2d 277, 281 (10th Cir. 1956).To the extent Omran
seeks to use the instant Motion to obtain a reversal of the Court’s Judgment and a second
chance at obtaining summary judgment in his favor, such use is improper.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Omran’s “Motion for Relief from Court
Judgment” (Record Document 105) be and is hereby DENIED.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana, on this the 17th day of
January, 2017.