United States District Court, D. Maine
MICHAEL R. JUTRAS, Plaintiff,
MARK LOPEZ, et al., Defendants
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR
E. Walker U.S. District Judge.
August 8, 2019, I issued my Decision and Order (ECF No. 204)
awarding summary judgment to Defendants in this § 1983
civil rights action. On August 9, 2019, the Clerk entered
Judgment for Defendants (ECF No. 206). The matter returns to
the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration by
Judge Lance Walker of Summary Judgment Decision (ECF Nos.
207). Although Plaintiff has also filed a Notice
of Appeal, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 and First
Circuit precedent, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. SS Zoe
Colocotroni, 601 F.2d 39, 41 - 42 (1st Cir. 1979),
permit me to rule on the motion for reconsideration pending
appeal. The First Circuit has advised that action on a motion
for relief from final judgment, such as Plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration, should be acted on expeditiously.
may seek relief from final judgment, and relief may be
awarded, upon an adequate showing of (1) “mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”; (2)
newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud or similar misconduct;
(4) a basis to void the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the
judgment and similar contingencies; or (6) “any other
reason that justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
Plaintiff advances his request based on the first and sixth
on the first ground, Plaintiff has submitted several copies
of an audio recording that was found to be corrupted during
my review of the summary judgment materials. I have listened
to the audio recording. I find its contents would not warrant
a different outcome.
on the sixth ground, Plaintiff asserts that “there is a
TREMENDOUS amount of ADDITIONAL evidence that [I] did not
review nor consider.” Motion at 5. With this argument,
Plaintiff faults, in part, my review of the materials he did
file and, in part, my failure to consider the possible
significance of materials he did not file. With regard to
Plaintiff's actual filings, a comparison of my Decision
and Order with Defendants' statement of material facts
reveals that Plaintiff persuaded me that certain of
Defendants' statements could not be accepted as
undisputed. However, Plaintiff's showing nonetheless fell
short of supporting the kind of findings that are necessary
for Plaintiff to succeed at trial. The substantive due
process standard is a very high standard, as I explained in
my Decision and Order on Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. Plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial unless he
can demonstrate that he has the kind of evidence that would
permit the jury to make all the necessary findings in support
of his claim. He failed to do so in opposition to
Defendants' motion for summary judgment, for the reasons
the materials Plaintiff did not file in support of his
opposition to the summary judgment motion, Plaintiff asserts
that the summary judgment proceedings only divulged
“perhaps 10%” of all the facts he could present
at trial. Id. at 8. He says it is “an
aberration of JUSTICE and abridgment of DUE PROCESS” to
deprive him of the opportunity to present his entire case.
Id. Unfortunately, for Plaintiff, the summary
judgment process required a greater showing than the one he
offered. When I reviewed the summary judgment papers and
audio recordings Plaintiff filed,  I could not see that he had
the kind of evidence that would enable a jury to find, on a
non-speculative basis, that Defendants engaged in
conscience-shocking conduct. Consequently, I concluded that
Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law
because Plaintiff “failed to make a sufficient showing
on an essential element of [his] case with respect to which
[he] has the burden of proof.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
to the extent Plaintiff seeks to introduce further evidence
in support of his summary judgment opposition, Motion at 11 -
15, now is not the time to make the summary judgment showing.
While Rule 60(b) allows for relief from judgment based on new
evidence, the evidence in question is not new. I decline
Plaintiff's invitation to revisit the summary judgment
proceedings based on evidence he could have presented but did
not present when it was due.
Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 207) is DENIED.
Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration by Chief Judge
John Levy (ECF Nos. 209, 210) are DISMISSED as unsanctioned
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
 Plaintiff has also filed two motions
for reconsideration that he directs to Chief Judge John Levy.
Plaintiff's suit was, initially, assigned to Chief Judge
Levy. However, on October 29, 2018, Chief Judge Levy
reassigned the case. Because the matter is no longer assigned
to Chief Judge Levy, Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration by Chief Judge John Levy of Judge
Walker's Decision at Summary Judgment (ECF No. 209) and
Motion for Reconsideration by Chief Judge Levy of the
Court's Decision to Transfer the Case (ECF No. 210) are
out of order and are hereby DISMISSED.
 Although Plaintiff contends I
disregarded his presentation, in fact, I reviewed and
considered his evidentiary filings even though he did not
properly introduce factual statements through the Local Rule
56 procedural mechanism. In particular, I reviewed the Walker
affidavit and ...