Yankton v. Epps et al
ORDER denying 31 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 10/8/14. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
LAVAN YANKTON, SR.
CHRISTOPHER EPPS, ET AL.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF=S MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff=s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s
final judgment dismissing the instant case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 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. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). Yankton argues that the Court should
construe his attempts to write the Mississippi Department of Corrections Commissioner directly
about his concerns regarding the cutting of his hair as his exhaustion of the administrative remedy
However, as the Court discussed in its memorandum opinion, the Mississippi
Department of Corrections has a procedure – approved by this court – for exhausting grievances,
and Yankton did not follow that procedure. Plaintiff has neither asserted nor proven any of the
specific justifications for relief from an order permitted under Rule 60. In addition, Plaintiff has
not presented Aany other reason justifying relief from the operation@ of the judgment. As such,
Plaintiff=s request for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 8th day of October, 2014.
/s/ Debra M. Brown_______
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?