Dillard v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PA et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying plaintiff's 15 Motion for Relief from Judgment; denying 17 Motion to Reopen Case and denying 18 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EDDIE DILLARD, #254178,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:09-CV-10702
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO., et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF
FROM JUDGMENT AND TO REOPEN CASE [DKTS. #15, #17, #18]
The Court has before it Plaintiff’s motions for relief from judgment and to re-open the
case concerning the Court’s May 27, 2009 dismissal of his pro se civil rights complaint, filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as frivolous, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, and on the basis of immunity, as well as the Court’s August 5, 2009 denial of his motion
for relief from judgment and the Court’s December 17, 2009 denial of his motion to alter the
judgment.
Plaintiff essentially seeks reconsideration of the Court’s rulings denying him relief and
dismissing his complaint. However, a motion for reconsideration which presents issues already
ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. See
Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc.,
P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing a
palpable defect by which the Court has been misled or his burden of showing that a different
disposition must result from a correction thereof, as required by Local Rule 7.1(h)(3).
Even if the Court considers Plaintiff’s motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
1

60(b), he is not entitled to relief. Under that rule, a district court may grant relief from a final
judgment or order only upon a showing of one of the following reasons: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due
diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3)
fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other
misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or
otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective
application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b).
A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time – and for reasons (1),
(2), and (3) – no more than one year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the
proceeding. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); Conner v. Attorney General, 96 F. App’x 990, 992 (6th
Cir. 2004). The bounds of reasonable time “ordinarily depends on the facts of the given case
including the length and circumstances of the delay, the prejudice to the opposing party by
reason of the delay, and the circumstances compelling equitable relief.” Olle v. Henry & Wright
Corp., 910 F.2d 357, 365 (6th Cir. 1990). A court has broad discretion in deciding such matters,
but that discretion is circumscribed by public policy favoring finality of judgments and
termination of litigation. See Waifersong, Ltd. v. Classic Music Vending, 976 F.2d 290, 292 (6th
Cir. 1992).
Plaintiff is not entitled to relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) because he did not
act within one-year or within a reasonable time in bringing his motion. As noted, the Court
dismissed his complaint on May 27, 2009, denied his first motion for relief from judgment on
August 5, 2009, and denied his motion to alter the judgment on December 17, 2009. More than
2

14 months (as to the second motion for relief from judgment) and 18 months (as to the motions
to reopen) have passed since the latest of those decisions. Under the circumstances of this case,
where Plaintiff essentially seeks reconsideration and raises the same type of arguments already
presented to, and rejected by, this Court, such an extended period is not a reasonable time in
which to seek relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).
Plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to such relief. The Court properly dismissed his
civil rights complaint as frivolous, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and on the basis of immunity. The arguments raised in his motions do
not invalidate those rulings. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions. This case is
closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: July 26, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon Eddie Dillard #254178,
141 First Street, Coldwater, MI 49036 and counsel of record on July 26, 2011, by electronic
and/or ordinary mail.
s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3