Lawrence v. Jefferson Parish Public Defenders

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHAWNDRIKA LAWRENCE, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs

VERSUS NO. 20-1615

JEFFERSON PARISH PUBLIC SECTION: “E” (5) DEFENDERS, ET AL., Defendants

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is Plaintiff Shawndrika Lawrence’s motion to set aside the Court’s February 8, 2023 Order and Reasons for fraud on the Court.1 For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff seeks relief from this Court’s February 8, 2023 Order and Reasons, in which the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to obtain a transcript at the government’s expense.2 Under Rule 60(b), the Court may “relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for one of six enumerated 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.3

1 R. Doc. 114. 2 R. Doc. 113. 3 FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). The district court enjoys broad discretion in assessing whether any of these reasons are present in a given case. Plaintiff argues the Court should set aside its order based on Rule 60(b)(3). A Rule 60(b)(3) motion for reconsideration based on fraud requires the movant to “establish by clear and convincing evidence (1) that the adverse party engaged in fraud or other misconduct and (2) that this misconduct prevented the moving party from fully and fairly presenting his case.’”5 Although Plaintiff broadly asserts “fraud on the court,” Plaintiff has not shown that any party in this case engaged in fraud, nor has she shown she was prevented from fully and fairly presenting her case. Rule 60(b)(3) does not provide a basis for reconsideration of the February 8, 2023 Order and Reasons. Accordingly; IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to set aside this Court’s February 8, 2023 Order and Reasons is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of March, 2023. Stee —_ SUSIE noni UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 2005). 5 Gout Fin. Servs. One Ltd. P’ship v. Peyton Place, Inc., 62 F.3d 767, 772 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted).