Daniels v. Caldwell
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 11/16/2015. Copy mailed to Daniels on 11/16/2015.(tjoh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
Cl
JOSEPH A.
DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
V.
Civil Action No.
PAUL E.
3:14CV856
CALDWELL,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Joseph A.
and
m
forma
Daniels,
pauperis,
JUDGMENT"
wherein
April 10,
2014,
he
filed
seeks
Case No.
granting defendant
No. 1.)
a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se
this
action entitled
''relief
from
3;ll-cv-461-REP,
summary
Daniels believes
judgment
''[t]he
is
judgment
entered
FOR
on
where such judgment
void."
judgment
"MOTION
is void
(Mot.
1,
in that
ECF
the
plaintiff was denied his Due Process Right to have the disputed
material facts decided by a jury .
As background,
December
18,
.
.
."
(Id.)
by Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on
2013,
the
Court
granted
Defendant
Paul
E.
Caldwell's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the action
as factually frivolous.
2013 WL 6713129,
at *4
See Daniels v. Caldwell, No.
(E.D. Va.
Dec.
18,
2013)
3:11CV461,
Subsequently,
^ The Court explained that:
Daniels's
claim
of
deliberate
indifference
is
predicated upon the allegation that Dr.
Caldwell
unnecessarily
removed Daniel's
deltoid muscle
and
failed
to
provide
Daniels
with
physical
therapy
following Daniel's surgery. . . .
Such a claim is
on
April
10,
2014,
Reconsideration
(ECF No.
Circuit
Cir.
81.)
under
Court
Federal
denied
Rule
Daniels
The
United
v.
200
without
(2014) .
the
Civil
Caldwell,
States
569
Supreme
petition for a writ of certiorari.
Ct.
of
Daniels's
Motion
Procedure
for
59(e).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
affirmed.
2014).
the
Court
he
^"INDEPENDENT ACTION"
desired,
from
159
(4th
Caldwell,
135 S.
the appeals process
Daniels
seeking relief
App'x
denied Daniels's
Daniels v.
Having reached the end of
result
F.
filed
the
the
instant
judgment."
(Mot.
1.)
As
a
preliminary
matter,
Daniels
identifies
that
the
"judgment" he challenges is the Court's denial of his Motion for
Reconsideration
appears
Caldwell
to
on
April
challenge
December
granted
summary
dispute
existed as
factually
Caldwell
18,
the
2014.
Court's
2013.
judgment
in
To
grant
Daniels
error
the
of
not
The
remove
because
evidence
Daniel's
contrary,
Daniels
summary judgment
argues
to whether Daniels[']s
frivolous.
did
10,
"a
that
the
material
factual
reflects
that
Dr.
muscle
and
provided Daniels with physical therapy following his
surgery.
Indeed, Daniels bears sole responsibility
for the termination of his physical therapy.
Because
the
evidence
reflects
that Dr.
Caldwell provided
reasonable medical
care,
rather
than acting with
deliberate
indifference,
the
Motion
for
Summary
Judgment will be granted.
Daniels's claim will be
dismissed.
Daniels,
2013 WL 6713129,
at *3.
Court
shoulder muscle
deltoid
to
was
removed."
(Mot.
2.)
Daniels
contends
that
the
judgment
is
''VOID" because the Court improperly granted summary judgment for
Caldwell
''because
Daniels
Roseboro notice."
to
identify
challenge
a
(Id.
a
did
at 6
procedural
judgment
not
respond
to
the
(emphasis added)).
vehicle
in another
that
case
defendant's
Daniels fails
authorizes
by an
him
independent
to
civil
action.
Generously construing Daniels's submission,
he may intend to bring an action pursuant
Civil
Rule
Procedure
("Rule
to
60(b)(4)")
and
60(d).
explains
to .
.
that
Federal
"[Rule
60]
does
60(d) (1)
Inc.
of
not
Civil
limit
.
Procedure
60(d)
court's
power
a
. entertain an independent action to relieve a party from
a judgment, order, proceeding."
grave
Rule
.
Under
Fed.
60(b) (4) .
.
of
judgment, order, or proceeding" if "the judgment is void."
Pr.
party
Rule
final
Civ.
"the court may relieve a
Federal
from
R.
60(b)(4)
60(b)(4)
it appears that
relief
"is
miscarriage
V.
of
available
quotation
only
justice."
Cap'l City Bank,
(internal
Fed. R. Civ.
614 F.
marks
if
60(d)(1).
required
Matthews,
App'x 969,
omitted)
P.
to
Wilson
972
prevent
a
& Matthews,
(11th Cir.
(citations
Rule
2015)
omitted).
Assuming without deciding that Daniels may bring an independent
civil action alleging that a
60(b)(4),
under
that
he
fails
rule.
judgment is void pursuant
to demonstrate
that he
is
to Rule
entitled to relief
A judgment is "void" for the purposes of Rule 60(b)
''only
if the court rendering the decision lacked personal or subject
matter jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due
process of law."
2005)
Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d 410, 412 {4th Cir.
{citing Eberhardt
167
F.3d 861,
the
concept
871
of
v.
Integrated Design
{4th Cir.
a
'void'
1999)).
order
Courts
under
Rule
& Constr.,
''narrowly construe
60{b)(4)
because of the threat to the finality of judgments .
(citation
omitted).
Daniels
fails
to
Inc.,
provide
any
precisely
.
.
."
Id.
persuasive
argument suggesting that the Court lacked jurisdiction or acted
in a
manner
states
inconsistent
that
the
with due
"judgment
is
void
process.
in
At
that
the
most,
Daniels
plaintiff
was
denied his Due Process Right to have to disputed material facts
decided by a
jury
.
.
.
."
(Mot.
1.)
Contrary to Daniels's
suggestion, no material dispute of fact existed.
Daniels failed
to
despite
respond
to
the
Motion
for
Summary
Judgment
provided with appropriate Roseboro notice.
6713129,
"chose
(Mot.
that
at
to
2.)
*1.
rest
upon
his
A review of
Daniels
perjury,
In the instant Motion,
did
thus,
not
the
the
swear
previously
record
to
complaint
his
See Daniels, 2013 WL
Daniels states that he
filed
in that
sworn
to
complaint."
action demonstrates
complaint
failed
being
under
constitute
penalty
of
admissible
evidence.^
^ Daniels only swore to his application to proceed
pauperis under penalty of perjury.
^
forma
Forma Pauperis Affidavit
The Court discerns no due process violation in the grant of
summary
judgment
for
(citation omitted)
Caldwell.
Eberhardt,
Rule
60(b)(4)
procedural
to
motion
30 F.3d 1307, 1310
due
process
(10th Cir. 1994)
arguments
where
prerequisites—particularly,
demonstrate
was
''void"
that
the
within
the
action
legally
See 28 U.S.C.
dismissed
as
denial
meaning
(ECF No.
be
1)
of
(rejecting
notice
Thus,
of
Rule
his
factually
and
Daniels
§
2255
60(b)(4).
will be denied.
and
The
frivolous.
1915(e)(2).
The Clerk will be directed to note
action for the purposes of 28 U.S.C.
The
871
''fundamental
adequate
Court's
Daniels's Motion for Judgment
will
at
to litigate the action);
opportunity to be heard-were fully satisfied").
fails
F.3d
(explaining no due process violation occurs
when litigant "had ample opportunity"
Orner v. Shalala,
167
Clerk
is
directed
to
the disposition of
the
§ 1915(g).
send
a
copy
of
the
Memorandum
Opinion to Daniels.
It
is
so ORDERED.
/s/
Robert E.
/•
/
,/ ^
Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Date:
Richmond, Virginia
at 1, Daniels, No.
No.
1,
3;llcv461
(E.D. Va.
at 6.)
5
filed July 20,
2011)
(ECF
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?