Baxter v. State of TN, et al
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER AND FOR STATUS. Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 9/18/17. (mbm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
TIMOTHY AARON BAXTER,
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ET AL.,
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER AND FOR STATUS
The pro se prisoner Plaintiff, Timothy Aaron Baxter, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On August 9, 2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii) and 1915A(b)(1)-(2). (ECF No. 13 at 5-8.) The Court then
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims brought pursuant to the
Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-20-205,
dismissing those claims without prejudice. (Id. at 8-9.)1
On February 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 22), which the
Court construes as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b). Plaintiff states that following the dismissal of this case and his appeal he re-filed the case in
the Madison County Circuit Court, attempting to revive his claims against the State of Tennessee
Plaintifff filed a timely notice of appeal. (ECF No. 18.) The Sixth Circuit subsequently
denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis, stating the case was properly dismissed and ordering
Plaintiff to pay the entire appellate filing fee. Baxter v. State of Tennessee, No. 13-6240 (6th Cir.
Mar. 14, 2014) (order denying leave to appeal in forma pauperis). When Plaintiff failed to
comply, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. Id. (Apr. 29, 2014, order dismissing
and Madison County pursuant to the Tennessee savings statutes, Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 281-115 and 28-1-105. However, like this Court, the state trial court dismissed the claims against the
State of Tennessee on the basis of sovereign immunity. Plaintiff’s TGTLA claims against Madison
County were dismissed as time barred.
On appeal the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed. Baxter v. State of Tennessee, No.
W2015-00078-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 9946302 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015). The Court of
Appeals held that the Tennessee savings statutes could not save Plaintiff’s untimely TGTLA claims
because those statutes do not apply to governmental entities. Id. at *3. The appellate court further
held the remaining claims were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim.2 Id. at *4.
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that the state-court decisions holding that
his claims are time barred are inequitable. He contends the state courts applied a “different rule
where a suit is filed in federal rather than state court in the first instance.” (ECF No. 22 at 5.)
Therefore, Plaintiff asks the Court to reinstate this case and exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
his TGTLA claims.
Under Rule 60(b) “the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons”:
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule
fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
the judgment is void;
the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based
In so holding, the Tennessee Court of Appeals noted that the TGTLA does not remove
sovereign immunity for claims brought against the State of Tennessee, citing the TGTLA’s
definition of “governmental entity.” Id.
on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying
it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
any other reason that justifies relief.
“Relief under Rule 60(b) is circumscribed by public policy favoring finality of judgments and
termination of litigation.” Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Trs. of UMWA Combined Benefit Fund, 249
F.3d 519, 524 (6th Cir. 2001). For that reason, “the party seeking relief under Rule 60(b) bears the
burden of establishing the grounds for such relief by clear and convincing evidence.” Sataym
Computer Servs., Ltd. v. Venture Global Eng’g, LLC, 323 F. App’x 421, 427 (6th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Info-Hold, Inc. v. Sound Merch., Inc., 538 F.3d 448, 454 (6th Cir. 2008)). Rule 60(b) is
not intended to allow relief from judgment merely because Plaintiff is unhappy with the outcome.
See Jinks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 250 F.3d 381, 385 (6th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration does not fit within subsection (1) of Rule 60(b), as he
is not arguing that this Court committed legal error; rather, his argument is that the state court
decisions were unfair. Neither does his argument fit within subsections (2) through (5).
Subsection (6) of Rule 60(b) authorizes relief only “in exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances” that are not covered under subsections (1)-(5). See Pierce v. United Mine Workers
of Am. Welfare and Retirement Fund for 1950 and 1974, 770 F.2d 449, 451 (6th Cir. 1985).
“Exceptional circumstances” under Rule 60(b)(6) means “unusual and extreme situations where
principles of equity mandate relief.” Olle v. Henry & Wright Corp., 910 F.2d 357, 365 (6th Cir.
1990). Plaintiff’s circumstances, in which he merely seeks to undo the decisions of the state courts,
do not present the type of unusual or extreme situation justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
The Court finds nothing in Plaintiff’s motion that justifies granting relief under Rule 60(b).
Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The motion for status is now MOOT.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court again CERTIFIES that an appeal would not
be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?