Grady v. State of Mississippi

Filing 29

ORDER denying 25 Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 3/9/17. (rel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER GRADY

PETITIONER

v.

No. 1:15CV172-SA-DAS

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

RESPONDENT

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER=S MOTION [25]
FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the petitioner=s motion for reconsideration of the
court=s final judgment [16], which the petitioner has styled a “Petition for Writ of
Certiorari/Collateral/Habeas Corpus Relief.” The court interprets the motion, using the liberal
standard for pro se litigants set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), as a motion for
relief from a judgment or order under FED. R. CIV. P. 60. An order granting relief under Rule 60
must be based upon: (1) clerical mistakes, (2) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect, (3) newly discovered evidence, (4) fraud or other misconduct of an adverse party, (5) a
void judgment, or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the order.
In the instant motion to reconsider, the petitioner has not addressed the reason for the
court’s dismissal of this case – that he failed to exhaust state remedies. Instead, it appears that he
merely reiterated the grounds for relief presented in his original petition. Thus, the petitioner has
neither asserted nor proven any of the specific justifications for relief from an order permitted
under Rule 60. In addition, the petitioner has not presented Aany other reason justifying relief
from the operation@ of the judgment. As such, the petitioner=s request for reconsideration is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this, the 9th day of March, 2017.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE