Lawrence et al v. Correction Corporation of America et al

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING 22 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 1/3/19. (cdi)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN KEITH LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 1:16-cv-01247-JDB-cgc

CORECIVIC, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________________
Pro se Plaintiff, John Keith Lawrence, a prisoner at the Hardeman County Correctional
Facility (“HCCF”) in Whiteville, Tennessee, filed this action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against various officials at the prison, as well as CoreCivic, the corporation responsible for
running the facility. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 1.) The Court dismissed all Defendants but one
pursuant to the screening standards set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.E. 12.) Plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the remaining Defendant, Dr. Dietz, with prejudice on August 3, 2018, after the inmate
was transferred to a different prison. (D.E. 20.) The Court entered judgment ten days later. (D.E.
21.) On December 31, 2018, Lawrence filed a motion with the Court requesting an injunction and
restraining order against Defendants because he had been moved back to HCCF and Defendants
allegedly resumed their offending conduct. (D.E. 22.)
Although Plaintiff seeks an injunction, his motion would procedurally require the Court to
reopen the case. Thus, it is more fairly characterized as a motion for relief from judgment under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). However, because Lawrence seeks to enjoin only new constitutional

1

violations, such relief is inappropriate, and the motion is, therefore, DENIED. If Plaintiff desires to
pursue these new claims, he would need to file a new complaint.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court must also consider whether an appeal of
this order by Lawrence would be taken in good faith. The good faith standard is an objective
one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The test for whether an appeal is
taken in good faith is whether the litigant seeks appellate review of any issue that is not
frivolous. Id. The same considerations that lead the Court to deny this motion also compel the
conclusion that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Therefore, it is CERTIFIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that any appeal in this
matter by Plaintiff would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd of January 2019.

s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Respectfully submitted,
PENTECOST, GLENN, MAULDIN & YORK, PLLC
By:

s/Jessica H. Chandler_______________
Jessica H. Chandler #32031
Attorney for Defendant, Dr. Dietz
106 Stonebridge Boulevard
Jackson, Tennessee 38305
[phone] – Telephone
[phone] – Facsimile

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that this Proposed Order Granting Motion for Extension has been served
electronically via the Court’s ECF system or via U.S. Mail on the following:
John Keith Lawrence, #267123
West Tennessee State Penitentiary
480 Green Chapel Road
P.O. Box 1150
Henning, TN 38041-1150
This the 18th day of May, 2018.
PENTECOST, GLENN, MAULDIN & YORK, PLLC
By:

s/Jessica H. Chandler
Jessica H. Chandler

3