Winding v. Pilkinton et al

Filing 122

ORDER denying 110 Motion ; denying 111 Motion ; denying 112 Motion ; dismissing 115 Motion for Hearing; denying 115 Motion for Order to Show Cause; denying 116 Motion to Reopen Case; denying 117 Motion for Hearing; denying 118 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 119 Motion to Reopen Case; denying 120 Motion for Hearing; denying 121 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 3/25/13. (co)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES C. WINDING

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10-cv-153-CWR-FKB

Dr. J.C. PILKINTON et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiff James C. Winding’s several motions, seeking: clarification
[Docket No. 110], writ of error [Docket Nos. 111, 112], to amend his complaint [Docket Nos.
118; 121], and otherwise seeking to reopen this case and set it for trial [Docket Nos. 115; 116;
117; 119; 120]. The Court entered Final Judgment on March 30, 2012 [Docket No. 109],
dismissing this case with prejudice. Accordingly, Winding’s motions are treated as motions for
relief from a judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.
To obtain relief from a judgment, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) requires the
moving party to show: “(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);” or “(3) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by
an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A Rule 60(b) motion must be made within a year if
the motion is based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud; or, if based on other
grounds, must otherwise be made within a reasonable period of time.” Hayes v. Jani-King
Franchising, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-382, 2012 WL 6738241, *2 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 28, 2012); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(c).
Winding’s motions fail to satisfy the “stringent” standard that applies to Rule 60(b)
motions, and he offers no other reasons why he would be entitled to the extraordinary relief that
he requests. Id.; Chestang v. Alcorn State Univ., No. 5:10-cv-67, 2011 WL 5593167, *2-3 (S.D.
Miss. Nov. 17, 2011). Accordingly, his motions are DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 25th day of March, 2013.
s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE