In re Petition for Leave to File by Enjoined Litigant

Filing 5

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered denying 4 Motion for relief from judgment. (PSSA, 4) (Main Document 5 replaced on 6/5/2019) (PSSA, 4).

Case 1:18-mc-91505-NMG Document 5 Filed 06/04/19 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN RE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
BY ENJOINED LITIGANT

MBD No.
18-mc-91505-NMG

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
GORTON, J.
By Memorandum and Order dated April 3, 2019, the Court denied
pro se litigant Precious Okereke leave to initiate a new civil
action. See Docket No. 3. The Court explained that Okereke failed
to comply with the filing requirements outlined in the Court’s
September 19, 2012 Memorandum and Order entered in Okereke v.
Boston Police Hackney Div., C.A. No. 11-11626-RWZ (D. Mass. Sept.
19, 2012).
Now before the Court is Okereke’s pro se motion seeking relief
from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure  Rule.

See Docket No. 4.

Okereke challenges the

validity of 2012 pre-filing Order and seeks to have the case
reinstated.

Id.

A motion for reconsideration does not provide a “vehicle for
a party to undo its own procedural failures and it certainly does
not allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance arguments
that could or should have been presented to the district court
prior to the judgment.”

Marks 3-Zet-Ernst Marks GMGH & Co. KG v.

Presstek, Inc., 455 F.3d 7, 15-16 (1st Cir. 2006).
1

Although Rule

Case 1:18-mc-91505-NMG Document 5 Filed 06/04/19 Page 2 of 2

60(b)(4) provides relief from judgments that are void, such a
motion is not a substitute for a timely appeal. See Wendt v.
Leonard, 431 F.3d 410, 412 (4th Cir. 2005)(The concept of “void”
is

narrowly

construed

because

of

the

threat

to

finality

of

judgments and the risk that pro se plaintiffs who have a history
of bringing vexatious suits “will use Rule 60(b)(4) to circumvent
an appeal process they elected not to follow.”).
Okereke fails to show that the 2012 Order is “void” within
the meaning of Rule 60(b)(4) and her motion does not alter the
Court’s conclusion that she failed to comply with the filing
requirements outlined in the 2012 pre-filing Order entered in
Okereke v. Boston Police Hackney Div., C.A. No. 11-11626-RWZ.
Accordingly, Okereke’s motion (Docket No. 4) is DENIED.
So ordered.
/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated: June 4, 2019

2