Taylor v. The City of Meridian Police Department et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 12 Motion to Reopen. Signed by District Judge Kristi H. Johnson on 11/25/2024. Copy of NEF and Order mailed to Plaintiff at address listed on docket sheet. (MPB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
LAMAJOR UNDREAOUS TAYLOR
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-3039-KHJ-MTP

MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Lamajor Undreaous Taylor’s [12] Motion
to Reopen. On August 9, 2024, the Court dismissed this case without prejudice for
failure to obey the Court’s [7, 8, 9] Orders. Order [10] at 2. On November 15, Taylor
moved to reconsider, arguing that he could not respond to the Court’s [7, 8, 9]
Orders, because he was allegedly in segregation and had not received any of the
Court’s mail since December 2023. [12] at 1–2.
Since Taylor filed the [12] Motion over 28 days after the [11] Final Judgment,
the motion shall be treated as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b); see also Cavalier v. Jill L. Craft Att’y at L., L.L.C., No.
23-30778, 2024 WL 2846059, at *2 (5th Cir. June 5, 2024) (per curiam). Under Rule
60(b),
the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment . . . for the
following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,
could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated;
or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
The Court dismissed this case because Taylor failed to respond to the [7]
Order Requiring Plaintiff to Respond and the subsequent [8, 9] Orders to Show
Cause. [10] at 1–2. He claims that he could not respond because he was placed in
segregation in the Scott County Jail. [12] at 1. He claims that “they moved me
around. . . . I couldn’t obtain . . . legal mail or send out . . . mail. Now I’m in Clarke
County Jail.” Id. at 1–2. Taylor does not give the dates of this alleged period of
inability to contact the Court, so the Court cannot discern if it was the cause of his
failure to comply or prosecute his case for at least six months. Because Taylor does
not demonstrate excusable neglect or present any other basis for reconsidering the
[11] Final Judgment, the Court DENIES Taylor’s [12] Motion to Reopen.
SO ORDERED, this 25th day of November, 2024.
s/ Kristi H. Johnson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2