Corrion v. Ludwick
ORDER denying 8 Motion to correct mistakes. Signed by District Judge Stephen J Murphy, III. (AGre)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHN CORRION, Plaintiff, Case No. 09-cv-11531 v. HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III NICK LUDWICK, Defendant. _____________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION UNDER RULE 60(b)(1)TO CORRECT HIS MISTAKES (docket no. 8) Plaintiff John A. Corrion has moved for relief from the Court's Order and Judgment summarily dismissing his civil rights complaint. The Court determined that the complaint was frivolous and failed to state a claim because Corrion did not show that defendant Nick Ludwick was personally involved in the incidents about which Corrion complained. In his pending motion, brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), Corrion seeks relief from the judgment so that he can correct his mistakes in the complaint, which he claims were inadvertent and the result of excusable neglect. He alleges that he failed to state the defendant's name in paragraphs 5 and 8 of his complaint and that he neglected to state in paragraph 17 that Judith Radditz and Officer Eldridge were being sued in their personal and official capacities. He seeks to have the Court set aside its judgment and allow him to file an amended complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) "permits courts to reopen judgments for reasons of `mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.'" Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993). In order to obtain relief under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), the moving party must demonstrate both the existence of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and a meritorious claim or defense. Marshall v. Monroe & Sons, Inc., 615 F.2d 1156, 1160 (6th Cir. 1980). Neither carelessness nor ignorance of the law on the part of the moving party will justify relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Saxion v. Titan-C-Mfg, Inc., 86 F.3d 553, 558 n.1 (6th Cir. 1996). Corrion's errors appear to be the result of carelessness or ignorance of the law, as opposed to excusable neglect. Furthermore, prisoners may not alter or amend their complaints to avoid a summary dismissal. See Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 488-89 (6th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007); Benson v. O'Brian,179 F.3d 1014, 1016 (6th Cir. 1999); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. at 199. Accordingly, Corrion's motion for relief from judgment and to amend his complaint will be denied. WHEREFORE, it hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment and to amend his complaint (docket no. 8) is DENIED. SO ORDERED. s/Stephen J. Murphy, III STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States District Judge Dated: October 13, 2009 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on October 13, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Alissa Greer Case Manager
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?