McRae v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER: DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT: denying 49 Motion to Amend/Correct. This action remains closed. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 03/01/2021. (kpf)

Case 2:17-cv-00066-RJS Document 50 Filed 03/01/21 PageID.199 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
STEPHEN PLATO MCRAE,

v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
& ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

SGT. FIELDING et al.,

Case No. 2:17-CV-66 RJS

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby

On January 16, 2020, after comprehensively analyzing Plaintiff’s lack of responsiveness
here, the Court dismissed this case. (ECF No. 46.) Three months later, Plaintiff moved “to Alter
or Amend the judgment,” (ECF No. 49), in what is essentially a motion for relief from judgment
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). He supports his motion with a litany of assertions about his
conditions of confinement that have allegedly hamstrung his litigation efforts. (Id.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) states in pertinent part: “On motion and just
terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons: . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect . . . . " Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b)(1). “Relief under Rule 60(b) ‘is extraordinary and may only be granted in exceptional
circumstances.’” Segura v. Workman, 351 F. App’x 296, 298 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished)
(quoting Beugler v. Burlington N. & Sant Fe Ry. Co., 490 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir. 2007)
(internal quotation marks omitted)). Whether a party’s neglect is excusable is an equitable
determination, factoring together “all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.”

Case 2:17-cv-00066-RJS Document 50 Filed 03/01/21 PageID.200 Page 2 of 3

Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). Such
circumstances include “the danger of prejudice to the [opposing party], the length of the delay
and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it
was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.”
United States v. Torres, 372 F.3d 1159, 1163 (10th Cir. 2004).
The Court exercises its discretion, Craft v. Olden, 556 F. App’x 737, 738 (10th Cir. 2014)
(unpublished) (reviewing denial of 60(b)(1) motion for abuse of discretion), to deny Plaintiff’s
motion. The analysis required here is nearly the exact same analysis the Court already undertook
in its dismissal order. (ECF No. 46 (analyzing dismissal for failure to prosecute under five
factors set forth in Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992).) In fact, nothing
Plaintiff suggests in his 60(b) motion puts in question the Court’s original Ehrenhaus analysis
regarding prejudice to opposing party, length of delay and impact on judicial proceedings, and
whether Plaintiff has acted in good faith. (Id. at 4-9.)
To be clear: Plaintiff submitted this action on January 23, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) By the time
the Court dismissed the case about three years later on January 16, 2020, (ECF No. 46), Plaintiff
still had not followed the Court’s extensive guidance over five orders giving Plaintiff repeated
chances to amend his complaints. (ECF Nos. 11, 33, 37, 41, 44.) Though Plaintiff blames his
inability to meet the Court’s requirements on a variety of prison conditions (in six different
facilities over several years), (ECF No. 49), he never specifies what specifically kept him from
amending his Second Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 43), between November 13, 2019, when
amendment was ordered, (ECF No. 44), and January 16, 2020, when the case was finally
dismissed (in an order with careful analysis of Petitioner’s three-year timeline of failing to ever

2

Case 2:17-cv-00066-RJS Document 50 Filed 03/01/21 PageID.201 Page 3 of 3

file a sufficient complaint, (ECF No. 46)). Without particular excuse, he was simply not in touch
at all with the Court for more than three months before dismissal, (id.), and thus failed to
prosecute this case.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s post-judgment motion is DENIED. (ECF No. 49.) This
action remains closed.
DATED this 1st day of March, 2021.
BY THE COURT:

CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States District Court

3