Jackson v. Bradshaw

Filing 12

Order denyingPetitioner's Motion for reconsideration. Related Doc # 11 . Judge John R. Adams on 8/17/18.(K,C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GREGORY JACKSON,

Petitioner,
vs.
MARGARET BRADSHAW,

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16 CV 1852

JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

ORDER

Now before the Court is Petitioner Gregory Jackson’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. #11)
the Court’s Judgment Entry (Doc. #10) adopting the Report and Recommendation and
dismissing the Petition. No response to the motion has been forthcoming.
Petitioner, acting pro se, requests that the Court interpret his letter as an appropriate
motion. This Court is enjoined to consider a pro se litigant’s pleadings more liberally than
pleadings drafted by lawyers. Williams v. Browman, 981 F.2d 901, 903 (6th Cir. 1992). The
Court notes that the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a pro se motion
to reconsider may be properly evaluated under either Rule 59 (e) as a motion to amend judgment
or under Rule 60(b) as a motion for relief from judgment. See Smith v. Hudson, 600 F.2d 60,
62–63 (6th Cir. 1979) (evaluating a motion to reconsider under Rule 59 (e) and Williams, 981
F.2d at 903 (evaluating a request to reconsider judgment under Rule 60(b)).

Thus, in an

abundance of caution, the Court will construe the present motion liberally, in Petitioner’s favor,
as either a Rule 59(e) motion to alter judgment or a Rule 60(b) request for relief from judgment.
A court may grant a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) and amend or alter judgment (1) to
correct a clear error of law; (2) to address newly discovered evidence; (3) to address an
interviewing change in controlling law; or (4) to prevent manifest injustice. Gencorp, Inc. v. Am.
Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). “It is not the function of a motion to
reconsider either to renew arguments already considered and rejected by a court or ‘to proffer a
new legal theory or new evidence to support a prior argument when the legal theory or argument
could, with due diligence, have been discovered and offered during the initial consideration of
the issue.’” McConocha v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. of Ohio, 930 F.Supp. 1182, 1184
(N.D. Ohio 1996) (citation omitted).
Under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may relieve a party
from a final judgment or order where the party shows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

(6)

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
fraud ... misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
the judgment is void;
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
any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “As a prerequisite to relief under Rule 60(b), a party must establish that
the facts of its case are within one of the enumerated reasons contained in Rule 60(b) that
warrant relief from judgment.” Johnson v. Unknown Dellatifa, 357 F.3d 539, 543 (6th Cir.
2004).

“[R]elief under Rule 60(b) is circumscribed by public policy favoring finality of

2

judgments and termination of litigation.” Ford Motor Co. v. Mustangs Unlimited, Inc., 487 F.3d
465, 468 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Petitioner fails to raise a valid basis to amend or vacate the Court’s judgment under Rule
59(e) or Rule 60(b). Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider describes a variety of challenges he faces
due to his pro se incarcerated status but identifies no error of law, newly discovered evidence,
change in controlling law, or manifest injustice that would support relief pursuant to Rule 59(e).
Similarly, rather than demonstrating a mistake, excusable neglect, new evidence, fraud, any
defect in the judgment, or any other reason justifying relief, Petitioner describes ignorance of the
law and difficulty accessing research materials.
The Court acknowledges that both proceeding pro se and incarceration present real
challenges. For those reasons, pro se pleadings are liberally construed and a prisoner filing is
deemed complete on submission to prison authorities. Williams, 981 F.2d at 903; Houston v.
Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2376 (1988) (pro se prisoner’s notices are to be “considered filed
at the moment of delivery to prison authorities for forwarding.”) Nevertheless, such allowances
are limited and do not extend to reviving an action after nine months of complete inaction has
resulted in the entry of judgment.
The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly rejected pro se status,
limited command of English, lack of access to trial transcripts, and limited law-library access as
bases for relief and/or equitable tolling. See, e.g. Hall v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Inst.,
662 F.3d 745 (6th Cir. 2011), citing Inglesias v. Davis, No. 07–1166, 2009 WL 87574, at *2 (6th
Cir. Jan. 12, 2009), inter alia. This record and Petitioner’s motion indicate that he successfully
requested an extension to complete his Traverse. The Magistrate, having granted his request for
extension, did not issue a Report and Recommendation for approximately five months after

3

Petitioner’s leave had expired. Petitioner made no effort in the intervening period to explain his
lack of filing or request additional relief. Similarly, when the Report was issued, Petitioner did
not file timely objections or seek leave to prepare objections. Petitioner continued to take no
action until after final judgment was entered.
None of the material now presented by Petitioner remedies, alters, or explains the
inaction and legal deficiencies that led to the dismissal of his Petition. In the absence of a legal
basis to amend or grant relief from judgment and for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. #11) the Opinion and Order dismissing this case. (Docs.
#20 and 21.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ John R. Adams
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Dated: August 17, 2018

4