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.

Louis v. Waltz

United States District Court, D. Maine

February 5, 2018

NIXON LOUIS, Plaintiff
v.
GARY WALTZ, et al., Defendants

          RECOMMENDED DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

          JOHN C. NIVISON, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         In this matter, Plaintiff Nixon Louis, an inmate in the custody of the Maine Department of Corrections, alleged that Defendants deprived him of due process, subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment, and discriminated against him.

         On December 13, 2017, following review of Plaintiff's claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff had failed to assert an actionable federal claim and dismissed Plaintiff's complaint. (Order Affirming Recommended Decision, ECF No. 13; Recommended Decision, ECF No. 11.) The Court entered its judgment of dismissal on December 13, 2017. (Judgment, ECF No. 14.)

         The matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment. (Motion, ECF No. 15.) Through his motion, Plaintiff attempts to clarify the nature of his federal claim, and he evidently requests the opportunity to assert state law claims of negligence and conversion. (Id. at 2.)

         Following a review of Plaintiff's motion, I recommend the Court deny the motion.

         Discussion

         A party may seek relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.

         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.