Gilmore v. Martin County Sheriff Dept. et al
Filing
61
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore's motion to reopen this case 54 is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore's motion to appoint counsel 55 is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. Plaintiff Christopher John Gilm ore's application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs 57 is DENIED AS MOOT. 4. Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore's motion seeking leave to amend 58 is DENIED AS MOOT. 5. Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore's motion to appoint counsel 59 is DENIED AS MOOT. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 11/21/2022. (RJE)
CASE 0:19-cv-00141-WMW-ECW Doc. 61 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Christopher John Gilmore,
Case No. 19-cv-0141 (WMW/ECW)
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
Martin County Sheriff Department et al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore’s motions to
reopen and to appoint counsel. (Dkts. 54, 55.) For the reasons addressed below, Gilmore’s
motions are denied.1
Gilmore filed this action in January 2019, alleging violations of his constitutional
and statutory rights in connection with the conditions of his imprisonment. Although
Gilmore styled his initial pleading as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the magistrate
judge determined that a writ of habeas corpus was not the proper vehicle for Gilmore’s
claims because he did not seek to challenge the validity of his conviction or the length of
his detention. The magistrate judge provided Gilmore an opportunity to convert his
1
After filing his motions to reopen the case and to appoint counsel, Gilmore filed an
amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, an application to proceed in district court
without prepaying fees or costs, a motion seeking leave to amend and a motion to appoint
counsel. Because this Court denies Gilmore’s motion to reopen this case, the Court does
not consider Gilmore’s subsequent filings, and his application to proceed in district court
without prepaying fees or costs is denied as moot. Gilmore is directed not to file further
motions relating to his new case on this docket.
CASE 0:19-cv-00141-WMW-ECW Doc. 61 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 4
pleading into a civil complaint within 30 days. Gilmore subsequently filed an amended
complaint after the court-imposed deadline.
In the interests of justice, the magistrate judge considered Gilmore’s late-filed
amended complaint and subsequently issued a report and recommendation that
recommended dismissal. Prior to this Court’s ruling on the report and recommendation,
Gilmore voluntarily dismissed this action. In light of Gilmore’s voluntary dismissal, this
Court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the case and enter judgment. Accordingly,
judgment was entered on November 14, 2019. Gilmore now seeks to reopen this case and
seeks appointment of counsel.
The Court construes Gilmore’s pro se motion to reopen liberally as a motion under
Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., which permits a district court to relieve a party from a final
judgment for any of six enumerated reasons. Relevant here, Rule 60(b)(6) includes a catchall provision, which permits a district court to grant relief for “any other reason that justifies
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).2 However, Rule 60(b)(6) relief is available only when
“exceptional circumstances have denied the moving party a full and fair opportunity to
litigate his claim and have prevented the moving party from receiving adequate redress.”
Harley v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir. 2005). To obtain relief from a final judgment,
2
The arguments in Gilmore’s motion also could be construed to seek relief under
Rule 60(b)(3), which permits a court to grant relief from a final judgment for reasons of
fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct by an opposing party. But a motion under
Rule 60(b)(3) must be filed within one year after the entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(c)(1). As judgment in this matter was entered on November 14, 2019, and Gilmore
did not file his motion to reopen until nearly three years later, Gilmore cannot obtain relief
under Rule 60(b)(3).
2
CASE 0:19-cv-00141-WMW-ECW Doc. 61 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 4
the moving party must make an “adequate showing” of the exceptional circumstances
meriting relief. Jones v. Swanson, 512 F.3d 1045, 1048 (8th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Gilmore argues that he dismissed his lawsuit because of Defendants’ acts of reprisal.
But Gilmore provides no details or supporting information that could constitute an
“adequate showing” of exceptional circumstances. Id. In addition, because Gilmore
voluntarily dismissed his case without prejudice, he retains the ability to refile his lawsuit.
Indeed, he appears to have recently filed a new lawsuit asserting allegations similar to those
asserted in this case. See Gilmore v. Martin Cnty. Sheriff Dept., 22-cv-2443 (MJD/TNL).
Gilmore, therefore, has failed to make an “adequate showing” of exceptional circumstances.
Jones, 512 F.3d at 1048 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, relief from the
prior judgment is not warranted and the Court denies Gilmore’s motion.
Because the Court denies Gilmore’s motion to reopen, his request to appoint counsel
is denied as moot.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing analysis and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore’s motion to reopen this case, (Dkt. 54) is
DENIED.
2.
Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore’s motion to appoint counsel, (Dkt. 55), is
DENIED AS MOOT.
3
CASE 0:19-cv-00141-WMW-ECW Doc. 61 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 4
3.
Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore’s application to proceed in district court
without prepaying fees or costs, (Dkt. 57), is DENIED AS MOOT.
4.
Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore’s motion seeking leave to amend, (Dkt.
58), is DENIED AS MOOT.
5.
Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore’s motion to appoint counsel, (Dkt. 59), is
DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated: November 21, 2022
s/Wilhelmina M. Wright
Wilhelmina M. Wright
United States District Judge
4
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?