Moon v. Jordan et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 8 MOTION to Alter Judgment filed by Plaintiff Keith Dionte Moon. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to "amend/alter the judgment" of August 29, 2017 pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.60(b)(l)" [Doc. #8] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 1/18/18. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

KEITH DIONTE MOON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
V.

JOHN JORDAN, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:17-CV-0091 ACL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiffs motion to "amend/alter the judgment 1 of August 29, 2017
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.60(b)(l)."
Plaintiff, Keith Dionte Moon, a former inmate at the Cape Girardeau County Jail, filed
the instant action on May 26, 2017, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that when he was
incarcerated in 2012, the Sheriff, several correctional officers, Securus Technologies and an
Unknown Food Service Vendor, violated his civil rights.
Because plaintiff sought leave to proceed in this action as a pauper, the Court reviewed
plaintiffs case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for frivolousness, maliciousness and for failure to
state a claim. On August 29, 2017, plaintiffs complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff seeks an order
from the Court altering the judgment over three months and twelve days later (104 days). He
asserts, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(l), that he is entitled to relief from the judgment based on
"mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."
1

The Court believes plaintiff is referring to a Motion for Relief from Judgment under
Fed.R.Civ.P.60. To the extent he is referring to a Motion to Alter/Amend the Judgment under
Fed.R.Civ.P.59, his motion would be untimely as such a motion must be brought within twentyeight days of the Order of Dismissal.

I •

Unfortunately, plaintiff has not alleged facts indicating that there was a "mistake,
inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect" in the case, such that the Court should alter or
amend its judgment in this matter.
Rather, plaintiff is merely asserting that the Court was incorrect in its legal reasoning in
its dismissal of the present action. This sort of argument could have been made in a timely
manner (within twenty-eight days of the judgment) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.59. Moreover,
plaintiff could have a timely motion for leave to file an amended complaint after the dismissal of
his action by submitting a proposed complaint in this matter, attached to his motion for leave. 2
Instead, plaintiff has sought to boost his original complaint with the instant motion, while
intimating that a "legal mistake" occurred on behalf of the Court. Plaintiff is incorrect, and the
Court will deny his motion to amend the judgment.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to "amend/alter the judgment" of

August 29, 2017 pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.60(b)(l)" [Doc. #8] is DENIED.
Dated thiraay of January, 2018.

~.L~

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

His time for doing so has now passed. Plaintiffs time for filing an appeal of the judgment has
also passed.
2