Potter v. Robert

Background

Donald J. Potter filed the action without a lawyer. On November 5, 2019, the court dismissed his complaint based on judicial and prosecutorial immunity. Potter then filed a motion challenging that order.

Motion for Reconsideration or Alteration of the Judgment

The court treated Potter’s filing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment and under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration. In the alternative, the court treated it as a motion under Rule 60(b) for relief from a judgment or order.

For Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3, the court explained that the person seeking relief must show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that Potter had not made that showing. It therefore denied his requests under Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3.

Rule 60(b) Relief

The court also considered whether Potter had shown a basis for relief under Rule 60(b). It found that, even when his motion was read generously, he had not alleged facts showing that any of the grounds in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) applied. Those grounds include mistake, newly discovered evidence, opposing-party misconduct, a void judgment, or satisfaction or reversal of the judgment.

The court separately considered Rule 60(b)(6), which allows relief for another reason that justifies it. The court explained that this provision requires extraordinary circumstances and cannot be used to avoid the limitations applicable to some of the other provisions. It found that Potter had not alleged facts showing extraordinary circumstances and denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6) as well.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon denied Potter’s motion for relief, identified as ECF No. 11. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Potter a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Potter fee-free appeal status.