Vaughn v. Massie, Asst. Regional Director et al

Filing 65

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 64 MOTION for Relief from Judgment (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(agould, 3)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
WILLIAM KELLY VAUGHN,
TDCJ # 01859690,

Plaintiff,
VS.
STEVE MASSIE, ASST. REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, et al,
Defendants.

January 11, 2019
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-0021
§
§
§
§
§

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff William Kelly Vaughn filed this civil rights action claiming that his work
assignment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional Institutions
Division violated his medical restrictions. On September 6, 2018, the Court dismissed
Vaughn’s civil rights claims and entered final judgment.

On December 13, 2018,

Vaughn filed a motion that the Court will construe as a motion for reconsideration (Dkt.
64).1
Because the motion was filed more than twenty-eight days after judgment was
entered, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) applies. See Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma,
Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n.2 (5th Cir. 2012). Rule 60(b) is an uncommon means for relief,
1

Vaughn captioned his motion “Motion, Appeal Request for Final Judgment.” In
the body of his motion, he discusses the facts of his claims and cites to multiple legal
cases regarding pro se filings and Eighth Amendment law. His prayer for relief states,
“With the court’s familiarity with this case Mr. Vaughn asks a review of all that’s
presented now and what the courts have and make a judgment in Mr. Vaughn’s favor
granting him the relief requested for the pain and suffering . . . and reconsider its
judgment on the summary judgment . . .” (Dkt. 64, at 4).
1/2

and “final judgments should not be lightly reopened.” Lowry Dev., L.L.C. v. Groves &
Associates Ins., Inc., 690 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal citation, alteration, and
quotation marks omitted). A Rule 60(b) motion may not be used to raise arguments that
could have been raised prior to judgment or to argue new legal theories. Dial One of the
Mid-S., Inc. v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 401 F.3d 603, 607 (5th Cir. 2005).
The Court’s prior opinion dismissed Vaughn’s Eighth Amendment claims because
the evidence in the record also shows without contradiction that Vaughn’s work
assignment accommodated all his medical restrictions. See Memorandum Opinion and
Order (Dkt. 59). Vaughn’s current motion contains argument that was or could have
been made before entry of judgment and fails to present any argument warranting relief
from the judgment under Rule 60(b). Therefore, the motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 64)
is DENIED.
The Clerk will send a copy of this order to the parties.
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 11th day of January, 2019.
___________________________________
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge

2/2