Vinson #194753 v. Riley et al

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM ; signed by Judge R. Allan Edgar (Judge R. Allan Edgar, cam)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION

CALVIN VINSON, JR., #194753,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:09-cv-46

v.

Honorable R. Allan Edgar

GERALD RILEY, et al.,
Defendants.
/

MEMORANDUM
On September 16, 2011, this Court entered an Order [Doc. No. 53] that, among other
things, dismissed Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim without prejudice. The Court based this dismissal
upon a paragraph found in Plaintiff’s “Motion for Relief” [Doc. No. 48]. Plaintiff has now filed
a Motion for Relief from a Order/Judgment, pursuant to Rule 60, seeking reinstatement of
this RLUIPA claim. Doc. No. 55. The Court has reviewed this motion and the matter is now
ready for decision.
A district court may relieve a party from a final order because of mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or for any other reason that justifies relief. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6). In his motion, Plaintiff states that he “never sought nor asked for
the dismissal of the RLUIP[A] claim[,]” and that he “only informed the judge that since he
cannot receive monetary damages under RLUIPA due to Colvin v. Caruso[,] 605 F.3d 282,
289 (6th Cir 2010) then he is entitled to damages under the 1st Amendment.” Doc. No. 55.
In his previously filed “Motion for Relief,” Plaintiff stated the following:

The Plaintiff never cited RLUIPA in his legal claims...The
Defendants have cited RLUIPA to deny the Plaintiff monetary
damages in his case according to Colvin v. Caruso[,] 605 F.3d
282, 289 (6th Cir. 2010). Since the Plaintiff never cited RLUIPA
as a legal claim it cannot be used and the Plaintiff is entitled to
monetary damages under the 1st Amendment.
The Plaintiff asserts that it was palpable error to cite[] RLUIPA
when it was never cited by the Plaintiff in his complaint and ask
this Honorable Court to remove it from it[s] Opinion/Order and
deny the Defendants Motions for reconsideration.
Doc. No. 48, p. 2.
The Court treated this portion of Plaintiff’s Motion as a voluntary dismissal based on
Plaintiff’s statements that he had not included an RLUIPA claim as one of his claims or in
his complaint. Given the liberal pleading standard afforded to pro se inmates, the Court
finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief and to reinstate his RLUIPA claim.
The case therefore remains pending on the following claims: (1) Plaintiff’s First Amendment
claim; (2) Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim; and (3) Plaintiff’s
RLUIPA claim.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum will be entered.
Dated:

11/8/2011

/s/ R. Allan Edgar
R. Allan Edgar
United States District Judge

2