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.

Eidson v. Schofield

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

May 31, 2019

GREGORY STEPHEN EIDSON, Petitioner,
v.
DERRICK SCHOFIELD, et al., Respondents.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          RICHARDSON, JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court in this habeas corpus action are two pro se motions (Doc. Nos. 44 & 45) invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), pursuant to which Petitioner Gregory Stephen Eidson seeks relief from the judgment of dismissal entered in this action on October 24, 2014, by Judge Kevin H. Sharp.[1] In response, Respondent Sonny Weatherford (who was dismissed from this action prior to final judgment because he was not Petitioner's custodian during the relevant period) argues that Petitioner's motions are untimely. (Doc. No. 48.)

         This action was reassigned to the docket of the undersigned on January 9, 2019. (Doc. No. 70.)

         II. DISCUSSION

         Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is addressed to “Relief From a Judgment or Order” and provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

         (b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its 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 prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time--and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of ...


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.