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. 10). As explained below, following
a review of the pleadings, and after consideration of the
filings, I recommend the Court deny Plaintiff's motion.
January 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action against
Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) On January 23, 2019, the Court
issued an Order that required Plaintiff to pay the filing
file or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by
February 6, 2019. (ECF No. 2). Having received no response
from Plaintiff, on February 15, 2019, the Court ordered
Plaintiff to show cause, by March 1, 2019, as to why he had
not complied with the Court's order. (ECF No. 3.) When
Plaintiff failed to comply with the Order to Show Cause, on
March 12, 2019, I recommended that the Court dismiss the
matter. (ECF No. 4). The Court affirmed the Report and
Recommended Decision on April 4, 2019 (ECF No. 5), and
Judgment entered on the same date. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff
filed his first motion to reopen on May 3, 2019. (ECF No. 7).
On May 28, 2019, I recommended the Court deny the motion.
(ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a second motion to reopen on May
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 any 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
facts that would support relief from judgment under Rule 60.
Plaintiff's filing reflects, Plaintiff has recently filed
a number of documents in connection with dismissed cases.
(ECF Nos. 10-1 - 10-6.) 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 warranted.
on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court deny
Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case (ECF No. 10). 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 ...