HAMILTON
v.
CITY OF LAKELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden required for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2).
Plaintiff sought relief from a summary judgment, claiming newly discovered evidence related to an Eighth Amendment violation. He argued a prison quara…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 60(B)(2) cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) (Dkt. 74), and Defendants’ response (Dkt. 75). After careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, the applicable law, and the entire file, the Court denies the motion. Relief Sought Plaintiff Mr. Hamilton asks this Court to reverse the summary judgment, reopen the case, and allow him to file a third amended civil rights complaint. Id. 74 at 1. Relying on 60(b)(2), he states his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment was violated. The motion, however, is devoid of any factual basis for such a constitutional violation. He asserts the claim is based on newly discovered evidence, which he could not locate with due diligence because he was unable under quarantine to review the state court record. Id. 74 at 2. He fails to identify the newly discovered evidence.
Legal Standard Rule 60(b)(2) permits relief from a final judgment when “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b).”1 To grant relief from summary judgment under 60(b)(2), a strict showing is required of the following: (1) the evidence was discovered since the trial; (2) the movant used due diligence to discover the new evidence; (3) the new evidence is not cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) the evidence would cause a new trial to probably produce a different result. Waddell v. Hendry Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 329 F. 3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden.
Application of Rule 60(b)(2) factors Plaintiff’s allegations do not show the prison quarantine prevented him from responding to the motion for summary judgment pending since June 22, 2020. He alleges “on May 15, 2020, Hamilton Correctional Institution was placed on quarantine due to the covid-19 virus.” Dkt. 74 at 1. On July 8, 2020, this Court received Plaintiff’s motion for more time to respond to the pending motion for
2017 could have been discovered long before the pandemic caused his facility to be quarantined. If the violations somehow occurred during his arrest, Plaintiff has known those facts since his arrest in April 2016. Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (Dkt. 74) is denied. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on December 7, 2020.
WILLIAM F. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Plaintiff, pro se Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Waddell v. The Hendry Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 329 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2003)