Greshamn v. Stewart et al
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT [#96]. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MICHAEL ISHMAEL GRESHAM,
Case No.: 13-10189
Honorable Gershwin A. Drain
DEPUTY DARREL M. STEWART, et
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT [#96]
On January 9, 2017, this Court entered an Order Revoking In Forma
Pauperis Status and Dismissing Action. See Dkt. No. 93. Presently before the
Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, filed on August 2, 2017.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a party relief from judgment,
order or other proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence, that, with reasonable diligence, could
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based
on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying
it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Plaintiff brings his present motion pursuant to Rule
60(b)(1) arguing that due to “oversight and mistake Plaintiff did not receive notice
his case was dismissed and has recently learned his case was dismissed.” See Dkt.
No. 96 at 1.
Plaintiff further argues that he provided documents evidencing that
he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury and that the Court should not
have relied on the medical exhibits submitted by Plaintiff because the Defendants
“are writing out false mental reports to declare Plaintiff mentally ill . . . .” Id. at 2.
As an initial matter, the docket sheet in this matter belies Plaintiff’s claim
that he did not receive timely notice of the dismissal of this action. The Court’s
deputy clerk served Plaintiff with a copy of the Court’s January 9, 2017 Order
Revoking In Forma Pauperis Status and Dismissing Action.
Additionally, Plaintiff has not identified any “oversight or mistake” with
respect to this Court’s January 9, 2017 Order, wherein the Court concluded that in
forma pauperis status based on the imminent danger exception was erroneously
granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Relief under Rule 60(b)(1) is intended to
provide relief only under the following circumstances: (1) when the party has
made an excusable litigation mistake or an attorney in the litigation acted without
authority; or (2) when the judge has made a substantive mistake of law or fact in
the final judgment or order. Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 226 F.3d 483, 489 (6th
Cir. 2000)(internal quotation marks omitted).
A review of Plaintiff’s present
motion reveals that he disagrees with this Court’s reasoning and conclusion. This
is not a valid basis for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment [#96] is DENIED.
Dated: August 23, 2017
/s/Gershwin A. Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record and on Michael Ishmael
Gresham, No. 202603, Marquette Branch Prison, 1960 U.S. Highway 41 South,
Marquette, MI, 49855 on
August 23, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Tanya Bankston
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?