Robinson v. Olive Branch Police Department et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying (55) Motion for Reconsideration in case 3:15-cv-00164-MPM-RP; denying (45) Motion for Reconsideration in case 3:15-cv-00196-MPM-RP - Clerk is DIRECTED to place subsequent filings by plaintiff in the correspondence folder unless they are necessary to prosecute a direct appeal. Signed by District Judge Michael P. Mills on 3/30/17. Associated Cases: 3:15-cv-00196-MPM-RP, 3:15-cv-00164-MPM-RP (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
ANTHONY ROBINSON

PLAINTIFF

v.

No. 3:15CV196-MPM-RP

LT. CHAD WICKER
DALE K. THOMPSON
DESOTO COUNTY
JAMES MICHAEL MEZIERE
LEANA
DEJAUN TAYLOR

DEFENDANTS
CONSOLIDATED WITH

ANTHONY ROBINSON
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 3:15CV164-MPM-RP

OLIVE BRANCH POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRAIG VINSON
JUDGE GARR
DAKE K. THOMPSON, DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK
SERGEANT WICKER,
LEANNA AND DEJAM TAYLOR

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF=S MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff=s motion for reconsideration of the
court=s final judgment [45]. 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.

The court has also denied the plaintiff’s motions [48], [49] to appeal as a pauper because he
has accumulated three “strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. This case is closed.
The plaintiff has neither asserted nor proven any of the specific justifications for relief from an
order permitted under Rule 60. In addition, the plaintiff has not presented Aany other reason
justifying relief from the operation@ of the judgment.
For these reasons:
(1) The plaintiff=s request [55] for reconsideration is DENIED;
(2) In addition, as this case is closed, the plaintiff’s motion [52] for a hearing is
DISMISSED as moot; and
(3) As this case is closed, should the plaintiff file any more documents in this case other
than those necessary to prosecute a direct appeal, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to place
them in the correspondence folder and send notice to the plaintiff to that effect.
SO ORDERED, this, the 30th day of March, 2017.

/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI