United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
JAMES D. WIMBER, AKA JJ Wimber, Plaintiff,
STEWART COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al ., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is a pro se Motion to Amend filed by
Plaintiff James D. Wimber, an inmate of the Stewart County
Detention Center in Dover, Tennessee. (Doc. No. 7).
Order and accompanying Memorandum Opinion entered on July 22,
2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis, screened the Complaint pursuant to
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and
found that the Court's review of the Complaint's
allegations was barred by issue preclusion. (Doc. Nos. 4 and
5). Consequently, the Court dismissed this action (Doc. No.
5), and the Clerk entered final judgment on the following
day. (Doc. No. 6). That means this case is no longer an
active case and there are no further issues for the Court to
resolve in this case.
now seeks to amend his complaint to add claims against Eric
Jackson. (Doc. No. 16). However, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure do not permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint
after the dismissal of his action and the entry of final
judgment, which is the case here. The only way the Court can
consider Plaintiff's motion is to construe it as motion
seeking an amendment of the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a motion for
relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
provides that the court may grant a motion to alter or amend
a judgment if there is a clear error of law, newly discovered
evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or to
prevent manifest injustice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e); see
GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d
804, 834 (6th Cir.1999). A motion to alter or amend judgment
under Rule 59(e) must be filed no later than 28 days after
the entry of the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Therefore,
Plaintiff's motion, if construed as a Rule 59(e) motion,
was timely filed.
motion, Plaintiff does not allege that there has been an
intervening change in controlling law that would require the
Court to revisit its previous legal analysis. Plaintiff does
not seek to amend his complaint to add claims based on newly
discovered evidence. Plaintiff states that he seeks to amend
his complaint to add claims against Eric Jackson based on his
purported role in Plaintiff's arrest and incarceration.
(Doc. No. 16 at 2). However, Plaintiff once before has
attempted to amend his complaint after the dismissal of this
case to set forth allegations against Eric Jackson, and the
Court already has considered those allegations. (See
Doc. No. 13 at 3-6). In so doing, the Court found that Eric
Jackson is a private citizen not subject to suit under
Section 1983; consequently, the Court concluded that
Plaintiff's post-judgment motion to amend, construed as a
motion seeking amendment of the judgment pursuant to Rules
59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, must be
denied. (Id.) In his most recent motion, Plaintiff
essentially is asking the Court to reconsider this finding
and has provided no reason for the Court to do so. For these
reasons, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a court to relieve a
party from a final judgment 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, or the judgment
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)(1)-(6). A motion for relief from a judgment or order
under Rule 60 must be filed “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 the
proceeding.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1). Therefore,
Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 21), if construed as a Rule
60 motion, was timely filed.
the enumerated grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)-(5)
apply in this case, however. Rule 60(b)(6) is a catchall
provision that provides for relief from a final judgment for
any reason justifying relief not captured in the other
provisions of Rule 60(b). McGuire v. Warden, 738
F.3d 741, 750 (6th Cir. 2013). Rule 60(b)(6) only applies in
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances where principles
of equity mandate relief. Id. “The decision to
grant Rule 60(b)(6) relief is a case-by-case inquiry that
requires the trial court to intensively balance numerous
factors, including the competing policies of the finality of
judgments and the incessant command of the court's
conscience that justice be done in light of all the
facts.” Blue Diamond Coal v. Trustees of United
Mine Workers, 249 F.3d 519, 529 (6th Cir. 2001); see
also Thompson v. Bell, 580 F.3d 423, 442 (6th Cir.
2009). A district court's discretion in deciding a Rule
60(b)(6) motion is especially broad due to the underlying
equitable principles involved. Tyler v. Anderson,
749 F.3d 499, 509 (6th Cir. 2014).
Plaintiff does not describe any exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances that mandate relief. The Court already has
analyzed Plaintiff's allegations against Eric Jackson and
determined that these allegations do not state claims upon
which relief can be granted under Section 1983 because Eric
Jackson's purported actions were not taken “under
color of state law.” (Doc. No. 13 at 5-6).
Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 16), whether construed as a
motion to amend his complaint after the dismissal of his case
and entry of final judgment, a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or
amend judgment, or a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a
judgment or order, is hereby DENIED.
is reminded that this case has been dismissed. There are no
further issues for the Court to resolve in this case.
Plaintiff cannot continue to add Defendants and claims.
Although Plaintiff may initiate a new federal civil rights
action upon submission of the proper documents and filing
fee, he cannot re-litigate the issues raised in his previous
lawsuits. That means any ...