Maher v. Bedford County Sheriff Department

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to open separate cases 42 , which will be DENIED for the reasons set forth. Plaintiff is again NOTIFIED that the Court will not look favorably upon any future m otions for post-judgment relief and/or evidentiary submissions based upon the same allegations as those Plaintiff has already set forth. This notification also applies to evidence that Plaintiff could have previously set forth. Plaintiff is also N OTIFIED that information regarding the status of Plaintiff's injuries and/or past medical events are not grounds for relief from the final judgment in this matter, and the Court will not look favorably upon any future motions seeking relief based thereon.Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A. Varlan on 11/20/17. (copy mailed to Robert Maher at Hardeman County Correctional) (ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
ROBERT W. MAHER, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BEDFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT and DR. MATTHEWS,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

4:16-CV-021-TAV-SKL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is a pro se prisoner’s civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On
September 16, 2016, the Court entered a memorandum opinion and order screening
Plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaint and dismissing them for failure to state a
claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 [Docs. 35, 36]. On May 18, 2017, the Court entered an order
denying Plaintiff’s first motion to amend the complaint after this dismissal and denying
Plaintiff relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. 38]. On
June 28, 2017, the Court entered an order [Doc. 541] denying both Plaintiff’s second
motion to amend the complaint after dismissal [Doc. 39] and Plaintiff’s motion to add
evidence regarding relief under Rule 60(b) [Doc. 40]. In this order, the Court notified
Plaintiff that the Court would not look favorably upon any future motions for postjudgment relief and/or evidentiary submissions based upon the same allegations as those
Plaintiff has already set forth [Doc. 41 p. 3]. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to
open separate cases [Doc. 42], which will be DENIED for the reasons set forth below.

In his motion to open separate cases, it appears that Plaintiff seeks to file a new
lawsuit against the Defendants in this case and other individuals based on what Plaintiff
alleges is new evidence [Doc. 42 p. 1–2]. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the fact that
he was not able to go to the hospital is newly discovered evidence and that this evidence is
a sufficient basis for a new action [Id. at 2]. No facts set forth in Plaintiff’s motion support
finding that Plaintiff’s inability to go to the hospital is “new evidence” to support any claim,
however.
As such, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to have the Court reconsider its dismissal
of this action based upon the fact that he was unable to go to the hospital, that request is
DENIED. Further, as Plaintiff has already filed a separate lawsuit setting forth allegations
substantively identical to those in this case, Maher v. Bedford Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, et al.,
No. 3:17-CV-231 (E.D. Tenn. May 31, 2017), his request to file a separate lawsuit is
DENIED as moot. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to file separate cases [Doc. 42] is
DENIED.
Further, Plaintiff is again NOTIFIED that the Court will not look favorably upon
any future motions for post-judgment relief and/or evidentiary submissions based upon the
same allegations as those Plaintiff has already set forth. This notification also applies to
evidence that Plaintiff could have previously set forth.
Plaintiff is also NOTIFIED that information regarding the status of Plaintiff’s
injuries and/or past medical events are not grounds for relief from the final judgment in

2

this matter, and the Court will not look favorably upon any future motions seeking relief
based thereon.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In his most recent lawsuit, Plaintiff has filed a number of motions requesting to add new
evidence. Maher v. Bedford Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, et al., No. 3:17-CV-231 (E.D. Tenn. May 31,
2017) [Docs. 5, 8, 14, 15, 16]. In these motions, Plaintiff sets forth various information that he
asserts is new evidence that entitles him to relief under Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b), however, sets forth
grounds for relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and the
Court had entered no such final order in that case as of the dates on which Plaintiff filed those
motions. Accordingly, it appears that in the motions filed in his most recent action, Plaintiff may
have intended to seek relief from the Court’s dismissal of this case. To the extent that Plaintiff did
so intend, however, those motions are improper, as Plaintiff cannot seek relief from the final
judgment in this case by filing motions in a separate case.
1

Moreover, even if Plaintiff had filed the relevant motions in this case, the Court would have
denied them, as the “new evidence” that Plaintiff asserts entitles him to relief includes allegations
about past incidents involving his injuries, medical records regarding his injuries, and/or updates
the Court on the current status of his injuries. None of this information entitles Plaintiff to relief
under Rule 60(b).
3