Craft v. Olden et al

Filing 38

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Denying 35 Motion to Reconsider; denying 34 Motion to Amend complaint (acg, Deputy Clerk)

FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH~t.\R 2 6 ZOP
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
''
..J
LOUIS D. CRAFT,
Plaintiff,
v.

C.O. OLDEN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 10-375-RAW-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs civil rights complaint against official of Davis Correctional Facility
regarding allegations of racial remarks, threats, and retaliation was dismissed in part for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies and in part for failure to state a claim. [Docket
No. 32]. He has filed a motion to alter or amend his complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) [Docket No. 34], which the court construes as amotion to alter or amend the judgment.
He also has filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 61 [Docket No. 35].
In his Rule 59(e) motion, he asserts he did not intentionally file his grievances out of
time. Instead, the grievance were out of time because he made procedural errors in the filing
that resulted in their untimeliness. He also reiterates the facts of his claims.
Plaintiffs Rule 60(b) motion alleges fraud by the defendants, because they failed to
present all the relevant documents. He claims he never received an unanswered appeal of
Grievance No. 10-1799, and he disputes the court's statement regarding the numbering of
10-1799 [Docket No. 32 at 4]. He also restates his allegations and disputes that his facility
had a grievance procedure in place through which the inmates can address their conditions
of confinement. He asks the court to excuse the exhaustion requirement because the
defendants allegedly misled him about the procedures. He also asks for relief under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 61, apparently claiming there were harmless errors in the court's ruling that affected
his rights.

After careful review, the court finds petitioner has failed to show he is entitled to
relief under Rule 59(e), Rule 60(a), or Rule 61. "[A] motion will be considered under Rule
59(e) when it involves reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the
merits." Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1323-24 (lOth Cir. 1997) (citations and internal
quotations omitted). "A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment should be granted
only to correct manifest errors oflaw or to present newly discovered evidence." !d. at 1324
(internal quotations omitted). "Rule 59( e) relief is appropriate only where 'the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law."' Barber ex rel. Barber

v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, 562 F.3d 1222, 1228 (lOth Cir. 2009) (quoting Servants of
Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (lOth Cir. 2000)). Under this analysis, the court
finds petitioner has failed to meet his burden.
Rule 60(b) allows relief for the following reasons:
(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);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,
or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
( 5) 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
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P 60(b).
Here, finds petitioner has failed to set forth any specific facts or law that would
warrant relief under Rule 60(b ). Plaintiff simply disagrees with the court's analysis and
conclusions in its order dismissing this action. Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to present
any specific allegation of harmless error under Rule 61, except perhaps that he failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies. Therefore, plaintiffs motion to reconsider the judgment
2

'

is denied.

ACCORDINGLY, plaintiffs motions to alter or amend complaint [sic] [Docket No.
34] and his motion to reconsider the judgment [Docket No. 35] are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this

ZJ(P day ofMarch 2013.

RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3