Waddleton v. Jackson et al

Filing 128

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT denying 127 Motion. Plaintiff is instructed that he may not file any additional pleadings under this case number without first obtaining leave of court.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
MARVIN WADDLETON, III,
Plaintiff,
VS.
NORRIS JACKSON, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-267
§
§
§
§

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO FILE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
Pending is a motion filed by Plaintiff titled “Motion to File Criminal Complaint of
Obstruction of Justice Perjury.” (D.E. 127). Having considered the motion, and for the
reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
By Order and Final Judgment entered October 24, 2012, this Court dismissed with
prejudice Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims challenging strip and visual cavity searches conducted
by defendant prison officials. (D.E. 104, 105). On January 22, 2014, by judgment issued
as mandate, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s Fourth
Amendment claims. (D.E. 123, 124). On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court
denied Plaintiff’s petition for a writ of certiorari. (D.E. 126).
On October 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed the pending motion. (D.E. 127). Plaintiff
argues that, because this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, he
was denied the opportunity to present his claim at trial or to question the validity of
Defendants’ summary judgment evidence.

(D.E. 127, p. 1).

Plaintiff argues the

affidavits presented by Defendants were “false” and caused an obstruction of justice, and
1/3

had the truth been revealed, the outcome of his case would have been different. Despite
his labeling of the motion as one to file a criminal complaint, Plaintiff is effectively
seeking relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets out five specific bases for
granting relief from a final judgment: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct of an
adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; and (5) satisfaction, discharge or release of the
judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(5). In addition, Rule 60(b)(6) provides that a court
may relieve a party from a final judgment for “any other reason justifying relief from the
operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). This “any other reason” clause is a
“grand reservoir of equitable power” to do justice in a case when relief is not warranted
by the five enumerated grounds; relief will be granted only if “extraordinary
circumstances” are present. Batts v. Tow-Motor Forklift Co., 66 F.3d 743, 747 (5th Cir.
1995) (citations omitted). Rule 60(b) is not to be used as a substitute or alternative to
appeal. Hill v. McDermott, Inc., 827 F.2d 1040, 1042 (5th Cir. 1987). Such a motion
must be made within one year after entry of judgment for reasons (1), (2), and (3), and
otherwise, within a reasonable time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
In his Rule 60(b) motion, Plaintiff contends the affidavits submitted by Defendants
in support of their summary judgment motion were false. However, Plaintiff raised this
same argument in his objection to the recommendation to grant summary judgment.
(D.E. 103). Thereafter, he had the opportunity to raise these same claims on appeal to the
2/3

Fifth Circuit and again in his petition for a writ of certiorari. Plaintiff has no credible
evidence to support his conclusory allegations that the affidavits made by Defendants in
support of summary judgment were false, and there is no other valid Rule 60(b) basis to
grant relief from judgment.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to File Criminal Complaint of Obstruction (D.E.
127), construed as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, is DENIED. To the
extent Plaintiff seeks to complain of alleged criminal activity, he must contact the District
Attorney or Office of the Inspector General. Plaintiff is instructed that he may not file
any additional pleadings under this case number without first obtaining leave of court.

ORDERED this 7th day of November, 2014.

___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3/3