Brown v. Voorhies et al

Filing 269

OPINION AND ORDER denying 267 Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Order Pursuant to Rule 60(b). Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 11/2/11. (sem1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

STEVEN S. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 07-cv-13
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp

v.
WARDEN VOORHIES, et al.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Order Pursuant to
Rule 60(b). (ECF No. 267.) In that motion, Plaintiff asks the Court for an order relieving him
from this Court’s denial of his previous motion to appoint counsel. Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure applies only to final judgments, not interlocutory orders. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b) (“On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding . . . .”). A final judgment or order is
one that conclusively determines the rights of the parties, leaving nothing for the court to do but
execute the order. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467, 57 L. Ed. 2d 351, 98 S. Ct.
2454 (1978). Denial of a motion to appoint counsel is not a final judgment, and therefore, Rule
60(b) does not apply to it.
This Court, however, may modify its prior interlocutory orders in cases still pending as
long as no final order has been issued. See Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund,
89 F. App’x 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004) (district courts have authority to reconsider interlocutory

1

orders and to reopen any part of a case before entry of final judgment). Here, the Court finds no
good reason to reexamine its previous denial of Plaintiff’s request for counsel. Accordingly, the
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Order Pursuant to Rule 60(b). (ECF No. 267.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2