Maze v. Terrell et al

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 42 . Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 9/25/15. (Todd, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
PAUL D. MAZE,
Plaintiff,
VS.
RANAE TERRELL, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 14-1153-JDT-egb

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On July 1, 2014, Plaintiff Paul David Maze, who currently incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Greenville, Illinois, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The Court issued an order on April 14, 2015, dismissing the complaint
sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state
a claim on which relief may be granted and assessing a third strike under § 1915(g);
judgment was entered on April 16, 2015. (ECF Nos. 28 & 29.)
Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e) on May 8, 2015. (ECF No. 33.) The Court denied the motion on May
11, 2015. (ECF No. 34.) On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for
reconsideration pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b), for leave to amend the complaint and for
discovery (ECF No. 35), which was also denied (ECF No. 36). A third motion to reconsider
and to amend was filed on August 3, 2015 (ECF No. 37), which was likewise denied on

August 4, 2015 (ECF No. 39). On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed yet a fourth motion
for reconsideration pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b). (ECF No. 42.)
Rule 59(e) is not intended to allow a party “to relitigate matters already decided by
the Court.” Windsor v. A Federal Executive Agency, 614 F. Supp. 1255, 1264 (M.D. Tenn.
1983), aff’d, 767 F.2d 923 (6th Cir. 1985). Rather, the purpose of the rule “is to allow a
district court to correct its own mistakes.” White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 455
U.S. 445, 450 (1982). A motion to alter or amend the judgment may be granted if there is
a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in the controlling law,
or to prevent manifest injustice. Graves v. Bowles, 419 F. App’x 640, 646 (6th Cir. 2011);
ACLU of Ky. v. McCreary Cnty., Ky., 607 F.3d 439, 450 (6th Cir. 2010); Henderson v.
Walled Lake Consol. Sch., 469 F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir. 2006); Gencorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l
Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999).
Rule 60(b) provides:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding 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 . . . ; (3) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by
an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released, or discharged, . . . ; or (6) any other reason that justifies
relief.
Plaintiff appears to be relying on subsections (1) and (6) of Rule 60(b). To the extent he
asserts that the Court’s ruling was legally deficient, a claim of legal error falls within the
definition of “mistake” under Rule 60(b)(1). Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Byers, 151 F.3d 574, 578

2

(6th Cir. 1998); Barrier v. Beaver, 712 F.2d 231, 234 (6th Cir. 1983). A motion under Rule
60(b)(1) is:
intended to provide relief to a party in only two instances: (1) when the party
has made an excusable litigation mistake or an attorney in the litigation has
acted without authority; or (2) when the judge has made a substantive mistake
of law or fact in the final judgment or order.
Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 226 F.3d 483, 490 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting Yapp v. Excel
Corp., 186 F.3d 1222, 1231 (10th Cir. 1999)). However, 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).
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 do not present the type of unusual
or extreme situation justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
Nothing in Plaintiff’s September 23, 2015, filing justifies granting relief under either
Rule 59(e) or 60(b). Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 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
3