Thomas, Johnny v. Judge Rowe

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 25-cv-80499-BLOOM

JOHNNY THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

JUDGE ROWE,

Respondent. /

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on pro se Petitioner Johnny Thomas’s “Writ of Prohibition for Motion to Dismiss,” liberally construed as a Motion to Reconsider under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). ECF No. [4]. Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). ECF No. [3]. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides relief from final judgments or orders in limited circumstances. Imperato v. Hartford Ins. Co., 803 F. App’x 229, 230 (11th Cir. 2020). “The grounds for granting a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate are (1) mistake or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) void judgment; (5) satisfied judgment; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Jones v. S. Pan Servs., 450 F. App’x 860, 863 (11th Cir. 2012). “But a Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Terrell v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 98 F.4th 1343, 1357 (11th Cir 2024) (quotations omitted). Rather, it “must demonstrate why the court should reconsider its prior decision and set forth facts Case No. 25-cv-80499-BLOOM or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Socialist Workers Party v. Leahy, 957 F. Supp. 1262, 1263 (S.D. Fla. 1997) (quotation omitted). On April 28, 2025, this Court dismissed Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition, finding that it was barred by Younger because “Petitioner asks this Court to interfere in his ongoing state criminal proceeding[.]” ECF No. [3] at 2. This Court further found that Petitioner had not alleged that any of Younger’s three exceptions applied. /d. at 4-5. In his Rule 60(b) Motion, Petitioner presents the same allegations he raised in his § 2241 Petition: he claims that his state trial judge violated his speedy trial rights, and he asks this Court to “please dismiss [the] Indictment” and have his state judge disqualified. ECF No. [4] at 1, 4. In other words, Petitioner again asks this Court to interfere in his ongoing state criminal proceeding, and he again fails to allege that any of Younger’s exceptions apply. Because Petitioner’s Motion merely seeks “to relitigate old matters,” it presents no grounds for reconsideration of this Court’s finding that Petitioner’s claims are barred by Younger. Terrell, 98 F Ath at 1357. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider, ECF No. [4], is DENIED, and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on July 9, 2025.

BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Johnny Thomas, PRO SE 0130339 Palm Beach County Jail Inmate Mail/Parcels Post Office Box 24716 West Palm Beach, FL 33416