Raleem-X v. Brown et al
OPINION AND ORDER denying 5 Motion for rehearing. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
(A/K/A CURTIS FULLER), # 211080,
Case Number 2:16-CV-11899
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
LARRY BROWN, et. al.,
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
THE MOTION FOR REHEARING (DKT. # 5)
Plaintiff Raleem-X’s (a/k/a Curtis Fuller) filed a pro se civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 9, 2016, this Court
dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), because plaintiff
had four prior civil rights complaints that were dismissed by federal courts
for being frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted and plaintiff had been denied leave to proceed in forma
pauperis at least four times under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the “three-strikes”
rule, based on these prior dismissals. This Court also determined that
plaintiff failed to show he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury, so
as to permit him to proceed in forma pauperis in spite of his prior frivolity
Plaintiff has filed a motion for rehearing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b),which is DENIED.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), a motion for relief from judgment can be
granted for 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
The party that seeks to invoke Rule 60(b) bears the burden of establishing
that its prerequisites are satisfied. See Jinks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 250 F. 3d 381,
385 (6th Cir. 2001). A Rule 60(b) motion is properly denied where the movant
attempts to use the motion to relitigate the merits of a claim and the allegations
are unsubstantiated. See Miles v. Straub, 90 F. App'x. 456, 458 (6th Cir. 2004).
A movant under Rule 60(b) likewise fails to demonstrate entitlement to relief
when he or she simply rephrases the prior allegations that were contained in the
original complaint. See Johnson v. Unknown Dellatifa, 357 F. 3d 539, 543 (6th
In the present case, plaintiff’s motion does not entitle him to relief, because
it merely reiterates the allegations and arguments that he made in his original
complaint. See Johnson, 357 F. 3d at 543. Plaintiff is merely attempting to
relitigate an issue that was already decided against him adversely by this Court.
The Court denies plaintiff’s 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, because he
failed to offer any arguments which this Court has not already previously
considered and rejected when dismissing plaintiff's complaint. See Brumley v.
Wingard, 269 F. 3d 629, 647 (6th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, he is not entitled to
relief from judgment.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for rehearing [Dkt. # 5] is DENIED.
Dated: August 22, 2017
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
August 22, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also
on Raleem-X a/k/a Curtis Fuller #211080,
Michigan Reformatory (RMI), 1342 W. Main, Ionia, MI 48846.
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?