Hull v. State

Full title: Robert Alling Hull, Plaintiff, v. State of Florida, Lee County, City of…

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division

Date published: Jul 10, 2006

Case No. 2:05-cv-480-FtM-33DNF (M.D. Fla. Jul. 10, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 2:05-cv-480-FtM-33DNF.

July 10, 2006

ORDER

VIRGINIA COVINGTON, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motions to Vacate the following: 1) Order of Court dated June 20, 2006 (Doc. #73); 2) Order of Court dated April 13, 2006 (Doc. #75); 3) Order of Court dated October 5, 2005 (Doc. #76); 4) Order of Court dated November 8, 2005 (Doc. #77) and 5) Order of Court dated November 10, 2005 (Doc. #78).

The Court construes Plaintiff's motions to vacate as being brought pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The purpose of Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., is to define the circumstances under which a party may obtain relief from a final judgment. "It should be construed in order to do substantial justice, but this does not mean that final judgments should be lightly reopened." Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted) (stating "[t]he desirability for order and predictability in the judicial process speaks for caution in the reopening of judgments."). Rule 60(b)(1) permits courts to reopen judgments for reasons of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. "Motions under this rule are directed to the sound discretion of the district court." Id.;United States v. Certain Real Prop. Located at Route 1, Bryant, Ala., 126 F.3d 1314, 1318 (11th Cir. 1997).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any grounds to warrant him relief from the Court's Orders dated June 20, 2006 and dated November 8, 2005. The Court did not enter an Order on October 5, 2005. The Clerk of Court entered judgment on November 10, 2005, pursuant to the Court's November 8, 2005 Order dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint. With respect to the Court's Order dated April 13, 2006, the Court has readdressed Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status for the appeal in this matter in its June 29, 2006 Order (Doc. #68).

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:

1. Plaintiff's Motions to Vacate Order of Court dated June 20, 2006 (Doc. #73), Order of Court dated April 13, 2006 (Doc. #75), Order of Court dated October 5, 2005 (Doc. #76), Order of Court dated November 8, 2005 (Doc. #77), and Order of Court dated November 10, 2005 (Doc. #78) are DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.