United States District Court, D. Maine
JOHN C. NIVISON, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff John Tichot's Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 22) and Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.  (ECF No. 23.) Through his Motion for Relief from Judgment, Plaintiff apparently seeks to reopen this case and proceed against an additional defendant or defendants based, in part, on information that he recently discovered. As explained below, following a review of the motion and the record, the recommendation is that the Court deny the motion.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on January 10, 2012, in which complaint he alleged torture by the Maine Governor's Office and the "State of Maine Law Enforcement Security Police, " in retaliation for a complaint he made to Maine Medical Center in 2005 regarding a tetanus vaccination that he received there. (ECF No. 1.) On February 28, 2012, Plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint, by which amendment he would dismiss his claim against the Governor's Office and proceed exclusively against the Maine State Police. (ECF No. 7.) The Court granted the motion to amend. (ECF No. 8.)
On March 14, 2012, the Court adopted the Recommended Decision of Magistrate Judge Kravchuk and entered Judgment of Dismissal because Plaintiff's complaint, as amended, asserted only conclusory allegations devoid of factual content that stated a plausible claim for which relief could be granted, and dismissal sua sponte was, therefore, appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). ( See ECF Nos. 5, 8, 12, 13.) On appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Court's Judgment. (ECF No. 20.)
Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment
In his motion, Plaintiff requests an injunction against the Maine State Police, and damages in the amount of $200, 000, 000. Plaintiff asserts in part that he is entitled to the requested relief because he has recently learned the name of the individual who was "involved" in the "issue of torture" about which he complains in this matter. In particular, Plaintiff contends that "the late Cumberland County sheriff, official, named Paul Newman" subjected him to torture based on a "watch list." (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff also makes unsubstantiated allegations about the activities of the "Maine jails group, " the "Maine security police agency, " the "Maine state party, " and the "Maine community organ detention." ( Id. )
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to grant relief from a final judgment 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);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it ...