United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division
MICHAEL T. PARKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Newly Discovered Evidence and Discovery to be Accessed .
The Court construes this as a motion for reconsideration of
the Final Judgment  entered in this case and as a motion
for further discovery. Having considered the Motion, the
Court finds that it should be denied.
December 7, 2015, Plaintiff Tommiel Quenponta Claiborne,
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
allegations in Plaintiff's complaint occurred while he
was a post-conviction inmate at Wilkinson County Correctional
Facility (“WCCF”) in Woodville, Mississippi.
Plaintiff is currently housed as an inmate at East
Mississippi Correctional Facility (“EMCF”). In
his complaint and as clarified in his testimony at the
Spears hearing,  Plaintiff asserted claims against
Defendant Dixon relating to not receiving a mattress within
he first few days of his stay at WCCF. He claims a lack of a
mattress injured his back.
August 15, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment . On September 28, 2016, the Court granted
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and entered a
final judgment, dismissing this action with prejudice.
See Opinion and Order ; Final Judgment .
December 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
Newly Discovered Evidence and Discovery to be Accessed ,
arguing that the Court should allow further discovery of
medical records from the prison, EMCF, where he is currently
housed because these medical records will show that his
injury is not de minimus.
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides for relief from a
final judgment in the following limited circumstances:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
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 misconduct by 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 prospectively is no longer equitable;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
has failed to show that any of the aforementioned grounds for
relief from judgment exist, and he does not explain why he
never requested these documents while his case was pending.
The record demonstrates that Plaintiff was given an
opportunity to conduct discovery. On May 2, 2016, the Court
set an omnibus hearing in this case and ordered the parties
to be prepared to discuss and identify any and all discovery
requests or issues at the hearing. See Order .
At the omnibus hearing held on April 5, 2016, the Court
considered discovery issues and ordered the parties ...