United States District Court, D. Maine
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION TO REOPEN
C. NIVISON U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on a filing of Plaintiff Justan
Adams, which filing the Court construed as a second motion to
reopen the case. (ECF No. 8). As explained below, following a
review of the pleadings, and after consideration of the
filing, I recommend the Court deny Plaintiff's motion.
October 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action against
Defendant. (ECF No. 1.) On November 8, 2018, following a
review in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(A), I
recommended the Court dismiss the matter. (ECF No. 2). The
Court affirmed the Report and Recommended Decision on
December 7, 2019 (ECF No. 3), and Judgment entered on the
same date. (ECF No. 4).
Rule of Civil Procedure 60 governs the Court's
consideration of Plaintiff's request for relief from
judgment. Rule 60(b) authorizes the Court to relieve a party
from a judgment on the grounds of “(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; it is based on an earlier judgment that
has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is
no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies
relief.” A party must file the motion within a
reasonable time, and for grounds 1 through 3, the party must
file the motion within one year of the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P.
has not asserted facts that could reasonably be construed as
a mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud as grounds for
relief. In addition, Plaintiff has not argued that the
Judgment is void, that the Judgment has been satisfied, or
that a related judgment has been reversed or vacated.
Finally, Plaintiff's contentions do not constitute any
“other reason that justifies
relief.” Plaintiff, therefore, has not asserted
grounds for which relief from judgment is available.
Plaintiff's filing reflects, Plaintiff has recently filed
a number of documents in connection with dismissed cases.
(ECF Nos. 8-1 - 8-6.) In addition, within the last two years,
the Court has dismissed three other cases in which Plaintiff
has filed motions to reopen,  and within the last ten years the
Court has dismissed or entered summary judgment against
Plaintiff in more than ten other cases. None of
Plaintiff's motions to reopen have merit. Given
Plaintiff's many filings that lack merit, an order
informing Plaintiff that filing restrictions “may be in
the offing” in accordance with Cok v. Family Court
of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1993) is
on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court deny
Plaintiff's second motion to reopen the case. I also
recommend the Court issue an order informing Plaintiff that
filing restrictions “may be in the offing” in
accordance with Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island,
985 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1993).
may file objections to those specified portions of a
magistrate judge's report or proposed findings or
recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court
is sought, together with a supporting memorandum within
fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy thereof. A
responsive memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14)
days after the filing of the objection.
to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the
right to de novo review by the district court and to ...