United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
V. S. GRANADE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on “David Morris Motion for
Judgment Pursuant to Document Number Three (3) and Relief
from Judgments Pronounced and other wise
Un-Pronounced”. (Doc. 49). After review, this Court
construes Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 49) as a motion for
reconsideration pursuant to either Federal Rule 59(e) or
60(b). For the reasons set forth herein below,
Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 49) is DENIED.
filed this ERISA action, pro se, against Southern
Intermodal Xpress (“SIX”), Assurant Employee
Benefits (“Assurant”), and Union Security
Insurance Company (“Union”) on December 21, 2016,
seeking death benefits after the death of Gwendolyn Morris.
On April 28, 2017, this Court entered an Order adopting the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge which
recommended dismissal of SIX pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6), but without prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to
file an amended complaint that properly alleged a claim by
not later than May 15, 2017. (Doc. 37). Plaintiff did not
file an amended complaint as ordered. Instead, Plaintiff
filed a Motion to Reconsider Document Number 37; Or Certify
the Document Number 37 Resolution as a Final Matter Ripe for
Appellate Review” (Doc. 38). On May 19, 2017, this
Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
(Doc. 39). On July 13, 2017, the remaining Defendants filed a
Motion for Judgment on the Record and brief in support
thereof (Docs. 43, 44) to which Plaintiff responded on August
10, 2017 (Doc. 46). On September 14, 2017, this Court granted
the motion and entered an order dismissing this action
against Defendants with prejudice. (Docs. 47, 48).
September 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion
entitled “David Morris Motion for Judgment Pursuant to
Document Number Three (3) and Relief from Judgments
Pronounced and other wise Un-Pronounced”. (Doc. 49).
Therein, Plaintiff “seeks the benefits of Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 60; and 59 and further seeks the grace of
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(vi) and related
rules and laws under the circumstances.” (Id.
at 2). Plaintiff's motion is unclear to some extent, but
Plaintiff asserts that “without a final Order in favor
of Defendant Southern Intermodal Xpress, LLC this case is due
to proceed onward …”. (Id. at 3).
Plaintiff additionally seems to assert that Defendants did
not properly disclose their legal status in relationship to
one another to the Court such that the dismissal of this
action was improper. (Id. at 3-4). For relief,
Plaintiff seeks “that which was prayed for in the
Original Civil Action Complaint”, seizure of David
Morris' money entrusted to SIX, seizure of the binding
“Declaration” authorizing 12-months term life
coverage, and seeks that judgment in favor of David Morris
“be revived and a hearing held to locate the funds paid
[to] Southern Intermodal Xpress LLC and Southern Intermodal
Xpress be judicially compelled to acknowledge its
“Declaration” acknowledge it computer generated
coverage payment receipts and finally pay to the order of
David Morris the beneficiary proceeds due therefrom and any
other relief deemed lawful and appropriate.”
(Id. at 5).
Plaintiff's contention that SIX was not dismissed from
this action, Plaintiff is simply mistaken. This Court's
Order dated May 15, 2017 specifically granted SIX's
Motion to Dismiss which became final upon Plaintiff's
failure to amend his complaint to state a plausible claim
against SIX by not later than May 15, 2017. (Doc. 37). The
record is clear that Plaintiff did not file an amended
complaint. Moreover, this Court addressed Plaintiff's
dissatisfaction with the Court's ruling adopting the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in its Order
denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
(See Doc. 39). Plaintiff's assertion that this
action either remains or should remain pending against SIX is
Court construes the remainder of Plaintiff's motion as a
motion for reconsideration of its order granting judgment on
the record as to Assurant and Union.
motion to reconsider under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
59(e) is available only “when a party presents evidence
of an intervening change in controlling law, the availability
of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or
manifest injustice.” Summit Med. Ctr. of Alabama,
Inc. v. Riley, 284 F.Supp.2d 1350, 1355 (M.D. Ala.
2003). Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b) is permitted for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due 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 other misconduct of 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 ...