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

Filing 40

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Letter Requests, His Supplement, His Request for Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, & His Request for Reversal and Remand 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 . 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
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S LETTER REQUESTS,
HIS SUPPLEMENT, HIS REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE
OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, & HIS REQUEST
FOR REVERSAL AND REMAND [Dkts. ## 35, 36, 37, 38, 39]
The Court has before it Plaintiff’s letter request seeking to reopen this case
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), his “Supplementation of
Original Petition,” his letter request challenging this Court’s dismissal of his civil
rights complaint, his “Motion for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus for
Immediate Discharge from Custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections,”
and his letter request seeking reversal and remand to state court filed on April 4,
2018, November 19, 2018, February 5, 2019, and March 25, 2019, and April 10,
2019, respectively.
The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s pro se civil rights complaint as frivolous, for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and on the basis of

immunity and concluded that an appeal could not be taken in good faith on May
27, 2009. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied Plaintiff
permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal on November 5, 2012 finding
that any appeal would be frivolous and then dismissed his appeal for want of
prosecution on December 20, 2012. This Court has denied Plaintiff’s motions for
relief from judgment, to alter the judgment, to reopen the case, and for evidentiary
hearing, as well as his petition for prejudgment interest and his application to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The last of those orders was entered on
December 19, 2013.
Plaintiff again seeks to reinstate his complaint, citing Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b), and he further seeks release from state custody. Under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), 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

2

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)(6) must be made within a reasonable time. 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 did not act within a reasonable time. The Court dismissed his
complaint on May 27, 2009, denied several motions in 2009, and denied his latest
motion in 2013. 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). His requests are therefore
untimely and must be denied.
Plaintiff fails to show that he is entitled to post-judgment relief. The Court
properly dismissed his civil rights complaint as frivolous, for failure to state a

3

claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and on the basis
of immunity. The arguments raised in his latest requests for relief do not invalidate
those rulings. Additionally, Plaintiff may not obtain habeas relief, release from
state custody, or a remand to the state courts in his criminal proceedings, in a civil
rights action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for relief.
[Dkts. ## 35, 36, 37, 38, 39] This case is closed. No further pleadings should be
submitted in this case. Further pleadings will be stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Denise Page Hood
DENISE PAGE HOOD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 8, 2019

4