Moore v. Morris

Filing 22

ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion/Response 20 is Denied. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 10/4/2019 (dtj)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION DEVANTAE A. MOORE, #211724 PLAINTIFF VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-189-KS-MTP ROBERT MORRIS, Investigator for Jasper County Sheriff’s Department DEFENDANT ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pleading filed on August 27, 2019, and docketed as a Response [20]. Having reviewed the Response [20] as well as the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff is once again requesting that the Court reconsider the dismissal of this civil action and reinstate this civil action. Pl.’s Resp. [20] at 1. The Court will liberally construe the Response [20] as a Motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1987) (finding that federal courts may construe and re-characterize a pro se prisoner action “according to the essence of the prisoner’s claims, regardless of the label that the prisoner places on his complaint”); see also Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 427 n.27 (5th Cir. 2011) (noting that Court must consider the “substance of the relief, not a label” to determine the “true nature” of the pleading). As evidenced by the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order [14] entered July 15, 2019, and Order [17] entered August 12, 2019, the Court considered the Plaintiff=s allegations and applied the relevant case law in resolving this matter. The Court’s decision in the Memorandum Opinion [14] and Final Judgment [15] entered on July 15, 2019, and Order [17] entered August 12, 2019, were the correct legal findings. The Court therefore determines that Plaintiff’s Motion [20] does not meet any of the grounds required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to grant relief from the Final Judgment [15] or Memorandum Opinion and Order [14] dismissing this case or the Order [17] denying Plaintiff’s Motion [16] to Alter or Amend the Judgment. Accordingly, it is, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Response [20] is construed as a Motion for Relief from a Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion/Response [20] is denied. This the 4th day of October, 2019. s/Keith Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?