Adams v. US Department of Justice et al
Filing
25
OPINION AND ORDER denying 22 Motion to Vacate; denying 22 Motion to Reopen.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(dterrell, 2)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
DALE B. ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al,
Defendants.
September 01, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk
§
§
§
§ MISCELLANEOUS ACTION NO. 2:12-MC-305
§
§
§
§
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
TO VACATE AND TO REOPEN CASE
On August 6, 2012, Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this action was
granted. (D.E. 7 and D.E. 8). Final Judgment was entered on August 7, 2012. (D.E. 11).
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed several motions, including for appointment of counsel,
copies of documents and for leave to amend, all of which were denied. (D.E. 13, D.E.
14, D.E. 15, D.E. 16, D.E. 17, D.E. 18, D.E. 20, and D.E. 21). Since 2012, there have
been no other filings in this matter. On August 5, 2016, almost four years after final
judgment was entered, Plaintiff filed the pending motion to vacate and to reopen this
matter. (D.E. 22). The motion is DENIED.
Applicable Law
A motion that challenges a prior judgment on the merits is treated either as a motion
to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59 or a motion for relief from judgment under
Rule 60(b). Ford v. Elsbury, 32 F.3d 931, 937 n. 7 (5th Cir. 1994). If the motion is filed
within twenty-eight (28) days of entry of judgment, the motion falls under Rule 59. Id.
If it is filed after that, it falls under Rule 60(b). Id. In this case, Plaintiff’s motion to
1/3
dismiss was granted on August 6, 2012, and his recent motion was filed almost four years
later. Therefore, the motion is properly considered under Rule 60(b).
Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states 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);
fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse
party;
the judgment is void;
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
any other reason that justifies relief.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). Final judgments should not be lightly disturbed. In re Marinez,
589 F.3d 772, 776-77 (5th Cir. 2009). For reasons one, two, or three above, the motion
must be made no more than a year after entry of the judgment or order or the date of the
proceeding. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1). Not only did Plaintiff fail to specify the section of
Rule 60(b) under which he seeks relief, he failed to list any reason at all. The Local
Rules for the Southern District of Texas require that all motions be supported by
authority. LR 7.4. Finally, the Court dismissed this action pursuant to Plaintiff’s motion.
(D.E. 7).
2/3
Plaintiff's motion to reopen and to vacate (D.E. 22) is DENIED as unsupported by
any authority to disturb the Plaintiff's own decision four years ago to dismiss his case.
LR 7.4.
ORDERED this 1st day of September, 2016.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3/3
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?