Andrew James Swetland v. Collin County, Texas

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

ANDREW JAMES SWETLAND, § #407806 § § v. § CIVIL NO. 4:25-CV-00785-BD § COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Andrew James Swetland filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Dkt. 10. Swetland filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1. On September 19, 2025, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order dismissing Swetland’s case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with the court’s order to pay an initial partial filing fee of $25.20. Dkt. 9. Swetland filed the instant motion, alleging that he was prevented from timely paying the initial partial filing fee because of “mail delivery delays” at the Collin County Detention Facility. Dkt. 10 at 1. He indicates that he has since asked the facility “to pay the assigned initial partial filing fee.” Id. at 2. The court has not yet received any fees in this case. In a Rule 60(b) motion, the movant must show that he is entitled to relief from judgment because of (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misconduct, or misrepresentation of an adverse party; (4) that the judgment is void; (5) that the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying the granting of relief from the judgment. Relief will be granted only in “unique circumstances,” Pryor v. USPS, 769 F.2d 281, 286, 287 (5th Cir. 1985), and the district court has considerable discretion in determining whether the movant has met any of the Rule 60(b) factors, Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 1991). Swetland provides no basis for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). This case was properly dismissed for failure to prosecute. Swetland has not complied with the court’s order, Dkt. 8, to pay an initial partial filing fee of $25.20. “A federal district court has both specific and inherent power to control its docket.” Miller v. Thaler, 434 F. App’x 420, 421 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting In re United Mkts. Int’l, Inc., 24 F.3d 650, 654 (5th Cir. 1994)). In the face of Swetland’s failure to comply with the court’s order, Dkt. 8, the dismissal was appropriate. It is ORDERED that Swetland’s Rule 60(b) motion, Dkt. 10, is DENIED, subject to reconsideration upon receipt of the initial partial filing fee of $25.20 within 30 days.