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)

Download PDF
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

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?