Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04—cv—01248-GI\/IS Document 20-3 Filed 10/20/2006 Page1 0f4

Case 1:04—cv—01248-GI\/IS Document 20-3 Filed 10/20/2006 Page 2 of 4
Westlaw
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 1
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 1385140 (D.Del.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
1_?J;ie§__agd_@@tg_Relate Bruton v. Wil1iamsD.Del.,2005.0nly the Westlaw (2) newly discovered evidence by which due
citation is currently available. diligence could not have been discovered in time to
United States District Court,D. Delaware. move for a new trial under Rule 59th); (3) fraud
Aaron E. BRUTON, Plaintiff] (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or
v. extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of
Raphael WILLIAMS, QR2 Team (MPCJF), New an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the
Castle County Police, Larry McGuigan, Sgt. judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged,
Washington, Major Cunningham, Joseph Belanger, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been
and QR2 Team ("DCC"), Defendants. reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer
No. Civ. 03-224-KAJ. equitable that the judgment should have prospective
application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief
March 31, 2005. from the operation of the judgment.
Fed.R,Civ.l’. 60(b). “The motion shall be made
Aaron E. Bruton, Smyrna, DE, pro se. within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and
(3) not more than one year after the judgment, order,
MEMORANDUM ORDER or proceeding was entered or taken." Id. The Order
J. dismissing Bruton's complaint was entered on July 2,
*1 Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff 2003. Bruton filed his Motion for Reconsideration on
Aaron E. Bouton's ("Bouton"), SBI # 198256, September 9, 2004.
"Motion to Reinstate Enrolled Judgment" (D.l.13),
which the Court construes as a motion for Bruton correctly notes that Fed.R.Civ.P. 60tl;)(g)
reconsideration pursuant to lQ¤;l;_R,QQi_ygP. 60gb)(Q). permits him to file a motion for "any reason
justifying relief from the operation of the judgment."
Bruton asserts that he is relying on Fed.R,(f`j;glL (D.l. 13 at 1) However, a motion made under @1;
60§blg 6;.lm "A motion filed pursuant to Rule 60gb) is 60(b)g61 must be made within a reasonable time. See
‘addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court l*`ed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)g'6l; Moolemmr v. Gov’r of the
guided by accepted legal principles applied in light of Virv, in /slam/s, 822 F.2tl 1342, 1346 (3d Cir.1987 3. "
all relevant circumstances.’ " Dietse/1 v. (/nited ‘What constitutes [a] ‘reasonable time’ depends upon
5'tuics. 2 l*`.Supp.2d 627. 630 tE.D.Pa.l998) (quoting the facts of each case, taking into consideration the
Ross v. zl»/mgczrz. 638 l*`.2d 646. 648 53d Cir.1981) interest in finality, the reason for delay, the practical
overruled on other grounds, Ro11zwz_4_y,__..leg/'éas. ,904 ability of the litigant to learn earlier of the grounds
1f,2d 192,, ,,,_ §_,4 (3d @{.1990)). relied upon, and [the consideration of] prejudice [if
any] to other parties.' " Dietsc/z. 2 1?.Supp.2<1 at 633
(quoting Devoirwv. Van;/m, No. 94-2534. l995_l}§QL
[Q1, The Local Rules of Civil Procedure 295431. at *2 (E.D.Pa. Apr.27 1995 )) (citation
require that "[a] motion for re-argument omitted). "Relief under Rule 60(b`)g'6) may only be
shall be served and filed within 10 days after granted under extraordinary circumstances where,
the filing of the Court's opinion or decision. without relief, an extreme and unexpected hardship
The motion shall briefly and distinctly state would occur." Qlmrowskv v. Kurtz No. 98-5589,
the grounds therefor." Local Rule Civ. P. 2001 WL 187337, at *7 (E.D.Pa. Feb.23,
7.1.5. Similarly, l?ed.R.Ciy.P. 59te) requires §l(L)(Citing Las/cv v. Continczzml Prod. Co1pQ__2@
a party to file a Motion to Alter or Amend F.2d 250. 256 g3d Cir.l986)). To allow litigants more
Judgment “no later than 10 days after entry leniency in this respect would undermine the
ofthe Judgment." overriding interest in the finality of judgments. See
id.
§ed,RlCiv.P. 60gb) provides that a party may tile a
motion for relief from a final judgment for the *2 Bruton filed the pending motion on September 9,
following reasons: 2004, alleging that from at least July 2003 until July
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04—cv—01248-GI\/IS Document 20-3 Filed 10/20/2006 Page 3 of 4
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 2
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 1385140 (D.Del.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
2004, he was classified to the Security Housing Unit Although Bruton asserts that, after the pre-trial
("SHU"). (D.I. 13 at 3) Bruton alleges that he was conference, he was classified to the SHU and
mentally incompetent during this period. (Ia'.) Bruton mentally incompetent until three months prior to
further alleges that he was denied access to filing the pending motion, the record contradicts his
persons trained in the law or imnate paralegals while claims. On August 13, 2003, Bruton filed a letter
housed in the SHU Building. Further, Plaintiff was with the Court requesting that the Court refund the
[also] in constant threat by the same state actors who $150 dollar filing fee stating, "I‘m currently think
[assaulted] him and this also was a factor in Plaintiffs about revising that Law Suit .... My Law Suite [sic]
decision to wait until his release from SHU unit as is was dismissed because I wouldn't sign the paper
the case now before this Court. work that the Court sent to me." (D.I.11) This letter is
typed, rather than handwritten, indicating that Bruton
(Ia'.) Finally, Bruton alleges that in within 90 days of had access to the prison law library, or at least to an
filing the motion, he was moved from the SHU to the imnate paralegal. Furthermore, the return address on
general population, earned a job and was no longer the envelope in which this letter was mailed indicates
mentally incompetent. (Id.) that Bruton was classified to the Medium Security
Housing Unit ("MHU"), not the SHU. Moreover,
On February 25, 2003, Bruton filed the Complaint although Bruton contends that he did not have access
and paid the $150 filing fee in full. (D.I.1) On March to "a person trained in the law or an irnnate
7, 2003, the Court entered an Order requiring Bruton paralega1," such access was not necessary. The Court
to complete and return an original U.S. Marshal had already determined that Bruton's complaint was
("USM") 285 Form for each Defendant, as well as not frivolous and that it should be served upon the
the Attorney General for the State of Delaware, Defendants. Bruton merely had to sign the completed
within 120 days from the date of the Order. (D.I.4) USM 285 Forms and retum them to the Court by
Because Bruton paid the filing fee, the Court also June 25, 2003.
ordered him to reimburse the United States Marshal
for the cost of serving the Complaint. (Id.) On April *3 I find that Bruton has not filed the pending motion
9, 2003, the Court received a letter from Bruton's to reopen within a "reasonab1e time" as required by
father stating that Bruton feared retaliation from the Rule 60tb)t 6). Bruton filed this motion over one year
Defendant, and, therefore, could not complete the after the Order in question was entered. Without
USM 285 fomis as ordered. (D.I.5) Consequently, compelling justification, such a delay is not
on April 11, 2003, the Court entered an order reasonable under the rule. SeeMoole11aarv. Gov'! of
scheduling a pretrial conference for April 15, 2003 at the Virgin lslanalv, 822 F.2d at 1348 (finding 60(b)(6)
2:00 p.m. (D.I.6) The Court also directed the Clerk of motion brought almost two years after to be
the Court to prepare the required USM 285 forms, as untimely); Mar·ti11e·z-Mcfieazz v. Gov? of the Virgirz
well as an application to proceed in forma pauperis. lx/rzrzds, 562 F.2d 908. 913 n. 7 {3d
The completed forms were presented to Bruton at the Cir.1977[(reversing grant of 60(b)(6) motion and
pre-trial conference for his signature. expressing doubts that reasonable time requirement
was met when district court granted motion two and a
However, Bruton refused to sign any of the half years after the disputed order was entered);
completed forms, even though the Court specifically Diem;/1, 2 F.Supp.2d at 63_3 (finding that 60(b)
explained that the signed fonn USM 285 forms were motion filed more than two years after contested
required in order for the United States Marshal to order was not within a reasonable time); I./lzized
serve the Complaint. Therefore, the Court directed States v. Real Properrv Located at I 323 Sozgh I Om
Bruton to take the completed forms with him and to §trec»t, Philadelphia, No. 91-5848. 1998 WL 470161,
think about signing them. On April 17, 2003, the *2 (E.D.Pa. Aug.1l, 1998) (finding four year delay
Court entered an Order to Show Cause requiring unreasonable). Bruton has not adequately explained
Bruton to sign and return the USM 285 forms, as well the delay in filing the pending motion. His argument
as the application to proceed in forma pauperis, by that he was denied access to the law library or to an
June 25, 2003, or the case would be dismissed. inmate paralegal, and that he was mentally
(D.I.8) On July 1, 2003, Bruton filed the application incompetent until three months prior to filing the
to proceed informa pauperis, but failed to return the pending motion is belied by the letter received by the
required USM 285 forms. (D.I.9) On July 2, 2003, Court on August 15, 2003.
the Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice.
(D.I.l0) Bruton did not bring the Motion for Reconsideration
in a reasonable time as required under Rule 60]b)t 6 [
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04—cv—01248-GI\/IS Document 20-3 Filed 10/20/2006 Page 4 of 4
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 3
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 1385140 (D.Del.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
Furthermore, Bruton has not presented "extraordinary
circumstances where, without relief an extreme and
unexpected hardship would occur." C /mrows/ty 2001
WL 187337 at *Z. Therefore, Bruton's Motion for
Reconsideration must be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, at Wilmington this 31st day of
March, 2005, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Bmton‘s Motion for Reconsideration (D.I.13) is
DENIED.
2. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this
Memorandum Order forthwith to Bruton.
D.Del.,2005.
Bruton v. Williams
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 1385140
(D.Del.)
Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top,)
· 1:03cv(@2251 (Docket) (Feb. 25, 2003)
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.