Callaway v. Morris

N.D. Mississippi

Callaway v. Morris

DecidedSeptember 23, 2020

Docket4:19-cv-00007

StatusUnknown

This text of Callaway v. Morris (Callaway v. Morris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Callaway v. Morris, (N.D. Miss. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION

DILLON CALLAWAY PLAINTIFF

v. No. 4:19CV7-RP

TIMOTHY MORRIS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION [29] FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff’s motion [29] for reconsideration of the court’s judgment [13] dismissing various allegations and defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court interprets the motion, using the liberal standard for pro se litigants set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under FED. R. CIV. P. 60. The plaintiff argues that his pro se status and incarceration hindered his ability to gather and present proof to support his allegations – and that the court should reinstate the allegations and defendants dismissed to allow him to do so. The court, however, dismissed the allegations and defendants because the plaintiff’s allegations, taken as true, did not state a valid constitutional claim. A dismissal of this type does not rely upon proof, but upon allegations only. As such, the plaintiff’s argument in the instant motion is without merit. An order granting relief under Rule 60 must be based upon: (1) clerical mistakes, (2) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, (3) newly discovered evidence, (4) fraud or other misconduct of an adverse party, (5) a void judgment, or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the order. Id. The plaintiff has neither asserted nor proven any of the specific justifications for relief from an order permitted under Rule 60. In addition, the plaintiff has not presented “any other reason justifying relief from the operation” of the judgment. As such, the plaintiff’s request [29] for reconsideration is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this, the 23rd day of September, 2020.

/s/ Roy Percy UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION

DILLON CALLAWAY PLAINTIFF

v. No. 4:19CV7-RP

TIMOTHY MORRIS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION [29] FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff’s motion [29] for reconsideration of the court’s judgment [13] dismissing various allegations and defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court interprets the motion, using the liberal standard for pro se litigants set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under FED. R. CIV. P. 60. The plaintiff argues that his pro se status and incarceration hindered his ability to gather and present proof to support his allegations – and that the court should reinstate the allegations and defendants dismissed to allow him to do so. The court, however, dismissed the allegations and defendants because the plaintiff’s allegations, taken as true, did not state a valid constitutional claim. A dismissal of this type does not rely upon proof, but upon allegations only. As such, the plaintiff’s argument in the instant motion is without merit. An order granting relief under Rule 60 must be based upon: (1) clerical mistakes, (2) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, (3) newly discovered evidence, (4) fraud or other misconduct of an adverse party, (5) a void judgment, or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the order. Id. The plaintiff has neither asserted nor proven any of the specific justifications for relief from an order permitted under Rule 60. In addition, the plaintiff has not presented “any other reason justifying relief from the operation” of the judgment. As such, the plaintiff’s request [29] for reconsideration is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this, the 23rd day of September, 2020.

/s/ Roy Percy UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Callaway v. Morris, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/callaway-v-morris-msnd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack