Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Goguen v. Gilblair

United States District Court, D. Maine

February 1, 2018

ROBERT GOGUEN, Plaintiff,
v.
JENNIFER GILBLAIR, et al., Defendants

          DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

          JOHN C. NIVISON U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         On October 13, 2015, following a jury verdict, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's complaint. (ECF No. 133.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. (ECF No. 134.) On March 7, 2016, the First Circuit, in affirming the judgment, concluded “that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence” and rejected “[Plaintiff's] claim of perjury, which is based exclusively on unfounded speculation.” (ECF No. 155.)

         The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Supplemental Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 160), Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order (ECF No. 161), and Supplemental Motion for Relief from Judgment. (ECF No. 162.)[1] The Court denies Plaintiff's motions.

         Background

         After a three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's claims asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Through his motions, Plaintiff requests relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) and, if successful, a new trial. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants provided perjured testimony at trial, that his counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation or introduce evidence in support of his claims, and that his counsel improperly abandoned certain claims.

         Discussion

         A party may seek relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

         Rule 60(b) provides:

         On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.