Omran v. Prator et al
ORDER: The Court's previous Memorandum Order (Record Document 106 ) is hereby VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Omran's Motion for Relief from Court Judgment (Record Document 105 ) be and is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 1/18/2017. (crt,HaikSld, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MOHAMMED AHMED HASSAN
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2426-P
JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.
STEVE PRATOR, ET AL.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
AMENDED 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.
In the Court’s original Memorandum Order on the instant Motion, the Court
mistakenly stated that Omran’s appeal was still pending before the Fifth Circuit and had
not yet been ruled on. See Record Document 106. As such, that Memorandum Order
(Record Document 106) is hereby VACATED. In fact, the Fifth Circuit affirmed this Court’s
ruling granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. See Omran v. Prator, 2016
U.S. App. LEXIS 23410 (5th Cir. 2016).
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. Omran had the
opportunity to present his Equal Protection argument in the district court, but failed to do
so. 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).
Finally, 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.
The Court’s factual error as to whether the Fifth Circuit had ruled on Omran’s
appeal does not affect the Court’s conclusion that Omran is not entitled to relief in the
instant “Motion for Relief from Court Judgment.” Indeed, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion
confirms that Omran should have raised his Equal Protection issue in his Motion for
Summary Judgment in the district court, but failed to do so. See Omran, 2016 U.S. App.
LEXIS 23410 (5th Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the Court’s previous Memorandum Order (Record Document 106) is
hereby VACATED. IT IS FURTHER 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 18th day of
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?