Williams v. Smith et al

Filing 30

OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Ronald A. White denying 26 Motion to Reconsider (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JUSTIN WADE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHANNON SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 16-467-RAW-DES

OPINION AND ORDER
On June 7, 2018, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute the case, and judgment was entered (Dkts. 24, 25). More than five years later, on July 17,
2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal, claiming the Court’s motion to show cause
why the action should not be dismissed, entered on May 16, 2017, was “ambiguous” (Dkts. 18, 26).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and liberally construes Plaintiff’s pro se motion
as a motion for relief from a judgment or order, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Rule 60(b) may relieve a party from
a final judgment or order 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).
Rule 60 further states that the motion “must be made within a reasonable time--and for
reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after entry of the judgment or order or the date of the
proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c).
After careful review, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to file his motion within a reasonable
time, and he has offered no explanation for his delay. Therefore, the motion must be DENIED.
ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff’s motion for relief from a judgment or order pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) (Dkt. 26) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of December 2023.

_______________________________________
HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2