Watkins v. Gentry et al
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER. It is ordered that plaintiff's 62 motion for relief from order is granted with respect to the 60 denial of his previous motion to alter or amend judgment. It is further ordered that plaintiff is provided an extension of fifteen (15) days from the date of this order in which to file his objections to the report recommending dismissal of this action. Plaintiff is notified that no further extensions of time will be granted. Signed by District Judge Marcia A. Crone on 12/16/21. (kcv, )
Case 1:11-cv-00377-MAC-CLS Document 63 Filed 12/16/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 204
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
ERIC WATKINS,
Plaintiff,
versus
LIEUTENANT GENTRY, et al.,
Defendants.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-377
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Eric Watkins, formerly a federal prisoner, proceeding pro se, brought this lawsuit
against prison officials.
The court referred this matter to a United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas,
for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge
determined plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and fail to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended
granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. After receiving no objections from the parties, the
report was adopted and a final judgment was entered.
Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the judgment which was interpreted as a motion to alter or
amend judgment. On June 14, 2021, plaintiff was granted an extension of time to file objections
to the court’s report recommending dismissal of the action. Plaintiff’s objections were due on or
before the expiration of fifteen days from the date of the order. After no objections were filed
within thirty days from the date of the order, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend
judgment.
On August 13, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend judgment or order (#62)
concerning the denial of his previous motion to alter or amend judgment. Plaintiff asserts that the
copy of the order mailed to him on June 14, 2021 granting an extension of time to file objections
was returned to the court in error. As a result, plaintiff claims he did not have an opportunity to
file his objections, and he requests relief from the denial of his motion for relief from
Case 1:11-cv-00377-MAC-CLS Document 63 Filed 12/16/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 205
judgment (#60). Interpreted liberally, plaintiff’s motion is construed as a motion for relief
pursuant to Rule 60(b).
Analysis
Rule 60, FED. R. CIV. P., provides in pertinent part:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On
motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative 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 under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed
or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other
reason that justifies relief.
Plaintiff concedes that the order granting an extension of time to file objections was mailed
to the address he provided to the court, but he states he did not receive the order because it was
returned to the court in error. After careful consideration of plaintiff’s motion, the court is of the
opinion it is possible that the mail sent to plaintiff was returned to the court by mistake.
Therefore, plaintiff should be allowed additional time in which to file his objections, if any.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for relief should be granted.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s motion for relief from order should be granted.
It is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for relief from order is GRANTED with respect to the
denial of his previous motion to alter or amend judgment (#60). It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff is provided an extension of fifteen (15) days from the date of this
order in which to file his objections to the report recommending dismissal of this action. Plaintiff
is notified that no further extensions of time will be granted.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 16th day of December, 2021.
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
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?