McWilliams v. Rayborn et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying plaintiff's 12 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by District Judge Pamela L. Reeves on 6/29/17. (c/m Philip A McWilliams NORTHWEST CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX 960 STATE ROUTE 212 TIPTONVILLE, TN 38079 ) (ADA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
PHILIP S. MCWILLIAMS,
ANDREW RAYBORN, MARK
NOTTAGE, WAYNE PATTERSON,
and SEVIER COUNTY SHERIFF’S
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint for relief filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This
matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s filing of a motion to reopen this case [Doc. 12]. For the
reasons set forth below, this motion [Doc. 12] will be DENIED.
On June 2, 2017, the Court entered a memorandum opinion screening Plaintiff’s complaint
and finding that the claims therein were time-barred and/or barred for other reasons [Doc. 10 p. 3–
4]. Accordingly, the Court found that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted under § 1983 and entered an order dismissing this matter [Id. at 3–5; Doc. 11].
In his motion to reopen this case [Doc. 12], which the Court liberally construes as seeking
relief under Rules 59(e) and/or 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff’s only
ground for seeking to reopen this case is his assertion that he has not been able to speak with
counsel about the case and was not aware of the statute of limitations for his claims [Id. at 1].
Plaintiff also sets forth a number of assertions regarding, inter alia, a statute of limitations that
allows a thirteen year old case to proceed against Bill Cosby, a biased legal system, collusion
between the courts and law enforcement agencies, abuse of power, tyranny, oppression, retaliation,
and corruption [Doc. 12 p. 1–5].
First, Plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of the applicable statute of limitations is insufficient to
justify tolling of the statute of limitations. Allen v. Yukins, 366 F.3d 396, 403 (6th Cir. 2004)
(holding that “‘ignorance of the law alone is not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling’”) (quoting
Rose v. Dole, 945 F.3d 1331, 1335 (6th Cir. 1991).
Moreover, none of Plaintiff’s other allegations show that Plaintiff is entitled to relief under
Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), as they does not set forth a clear error of law, an intervening change in
law, manifest injustice, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered
evidence, or fraud. See Alliant Tax Credit Fund 31-A, Ltd. v. Murphy, 494 F. App’x 561, 568 (6th
Cir. 2012) (quoting Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Sch., 469 F.3d 479 (6th Cir. 2006)) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case [Doc. 12] is DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
A S S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?