United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT [#36], GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [#37], DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [#43], DENYING MOTION IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 [#45], DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [#47] AND STRIKING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [#52]
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, District Judge.
Presently before the Court are various motions filed by Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights action. On August 27, 2014, this Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint Without Prejudice. See Dkt. No. 35. The sole remaining Defendant is Defendant Steven Adams.
Subsequent to this Court's August 27, 2014 Order, Plaintiff filed another action in which he requested that the action be considered in conjunction with the instant case. See Case No. 14-13806, Dkt. No. 7. As such, the Court issued an Order consolidating the two cases and construed Plaintiff's filing as a Second Amended Complaint in the instant action, which is also before the Court.
II. LAW & ANALYSIS
A. Second Amended Complaint
Upon review of the Second Amended Complaint, the Court finds that it should be stricken. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to state a claim for "relief that is plausible on its face." See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
Plaintiff labels his Second Amended Complaint as "Campaign of Harassment and Imminent Danger, " and appears to name Dan Heyns, Darrell Stewart, Michigan Correctional Organization, Prison Health Services, Correctional Medical Services and the Michigan State Police as Defendants. However, Plaintiff fails to allege in his Second Amended Complaint how each of the Defendants specifically violated his constitutional rights. As such, the Court cannot discern any possible claim based on the rambling and incoherent nature of Plaintiff's recent filing. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is STRICKEN. The Court will proceed in this matter with the First Amended Complaint. See Dkt. No. 11.
B. Motions for Relief from Judgment
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment and a "Motion in Support of Rule 60 Motion Submitting Affidavit." See Dkt. Nos. 36 and 45. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a party relief from judgment, order or other proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence, that, with reasonable diligence, could have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), ...