Bullock v. Gallatin County Detention Center et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 6/20/2018. Mailed to Bullock (TAG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
RUSSELL WAYNE BULLOCK,

CV 16-00045-BU-BMM-JCL

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

GALLATIN COUNTY DETENTION
CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter was dismissed and judgment was entered on December 12,
2017. (Docs. 17, 18.) On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff Russell Bullock, a prisoner
proceeding without counsel, filed a “motion for leave to proceed and file a second
amended complaint in the above titled cause, and motion to clairify [sic] whether
Bullock may proceed in a new case; upon voluntarily dismissal pursuant to
F.R.Civ.P. 41.” (Doc. 19.) The Court construed the filing as a motion for
reconsideration and denied it on May 30, 2018. (Doc. 20.)
On June 18, 2018, Mr. Bullock filed a document entitled, “Plaintiff’s Reply
to Courts May 30, 2018 Order and Response Showing Cause why the Case Should
Remain Open.” (Doc. 21.) Mr. Bullock argues that he has newly discovered
evidence that reasonably could not have been known at the time of Order

1

dismissing his case. Specifically, he contends that on or about May 24, 2018, he
received a letter advising him that Benefis Spectrum Medical had retained the
Crowley Fleck law firm to represent Spectrum and its employees in the defense of
his claim. (Doc. 21 at 5.) Mr. Bullock argues that the fact that Spectrum Medical
retained counsel constitutes an admission that they are at fault. He argues that his
claim is self evident and will be proven through medical records after discovery.
He contends that he suffered traumatic injury and suffers severe pain and chronic
suffering as a result.
As set forth in the Court’s May 30, 2018 Order, Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration where one or more of the
following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2)
newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence could not have been
discovered before the time to move for a new trial under Rule 59; (3) fraud,
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; or (6) any other reason
justifying relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
The fact that one of the named Defendants has retained counsel does not
constitute newly discovered evidence and does not meet any other criteria under
Rule 60. Retaining counsel does not constitute an admission of fault. Mr. Bullock
2

was advised of the deficiencies in his original Complaint (Doc. 9) and he failed to
cure those deficiencies in his Amended Complaint. He has never explained to the
Court what each Defendant did or failed to do despite numerous opportunities to
do so. His filings fail to state a claim. This matter has been closed for nearly six
months and there is not a sufficient basis to reopen the case.
No further motions for reconsideration will be considered in this case.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Mr. Bullock’s
“Reply to Courts May 30, 2018 Order and Response Showing Cause why the Case
Should Remain Open” construed as a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 21) is
DENIED.
DATED this 20th day of June, 2018.

3