Simmons v. Food Service Manager Gonzalez et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 28 Motion for Relief from Judgment..(Signed by Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JASON D. SIMMONS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
FOOD SERVICE MANAGER
GONZALEZ, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

April 29, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-347

ORDER
Plaintiff is a Texas inmate appearing pro se in this civil rights action. Pending is a
motion filed by Plaintiff which the undersigned construes as motion for relief from
judgment. (D.E. 28). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion for relief from
judgment is DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Gib Lewis Unit in

Woodville, Texas.

He filed this civil rights action on August 12, 2015, alleging

violations of his 8th Amendment rights when he broke his ankle after he slipped in the
prison kitchen at the Garza East Unit in Beeville, Texas. (D.E. 1). The case was
reassigned to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 on the
consent of Plaintiff. (D.E. 19). On December 31, 2015, Plaintiff’s case was dismissed
upon screening for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and/or as
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).
1/3

II.

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
A motion which 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 (5th Cir. 1994). Because
Plaintiff did not file his motion within 28 days after entry of final judgment, it is treated
as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Rule 60(b) authorizes the Court to give relief from judgment in a number of
situations including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered
evidence, fraud, or any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6). In
addition, Rule 60(b)(6) provides that a Court may relieve a party from final judgment for
“any other reason that justifies relief.” 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. Batts v. Tow-Motor Forklift Co., 66 F.3d 743,
747 (5th Cir. 1995)(citations omitted). This relief will be granted only if “extraordinary
circumstances” are present. Id.
III.

ANALYSIS
In his motion for relief from judgment, Plaintiff does not contend that a new trial

is warranted under any of the Rule 60(b) provisions (1) through (5). Therefore, he brings
his challenge pursuant to the equitable power found in Rule 60(b)(6), which is available
only if “extraordinary circumstances” exist. Batts, 66 F.3d at 747.

2/3

Plaintiff does not set forth the basis for his motion with clarity. However, it is
apparent that Plaintiff disagrees with the rationale for dismissing the case upon screening.
Plaintiff offers no new grounds to challenge the finding that his claims should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and/or as frivolous.
The facts and rationale for the dismissal are set forth in detail in this Court’s
Memorandum Opinion and Order of Dismissal (D.E. 20) and need not be recited again.
However, a summary is appropriate. Plaintiff injured himself when he slipped and fell
while working in the kitchen at the TDCJ Garza East Unit in Beeville, Texas. Plaintiff
alleges he was not provided immediate medical care. Upon discovering Plaintiff’s injury
was serious, Plaintiff was treated by medical personnel and he received appropriate
medical care. Plaintiff’s accident and the resulting injury is unfortunate, however, they
were not the result of deliberate indifference or other constitutional violation of Plaintiff’s
civil rights.

In the instant motion Plaintiff has not established that extraordinary

circumstances exist to grant his motion for relief from judgment.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (D.E. 28) is DENIED.
ORDERED this 27th day of April, 2016.
___________________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge

3/3