Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Coleman v. Johansene

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

July 8, 2019

VERNON MARCUS COLEMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIK JOHANSENE AND RAYMOND BUCCIARELLIR, Defendants,

          OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING THE MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Doc. 19) AND (2) DENYING THE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (Doc. 20)

          HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff filed two separate civil rights complaints. The cases were consolidated into one action. On April 18, 2019, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Coleman v. Johansene, No. 2:19-CV-10572, 2019 WL 1746256 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2019).

         Now pending are Plaintiff's motions to vacate the order of dismissal and for relief from judgment. The motions are DENIED.

         The Court discusses the motions together because they are related. Plaintiff seeks relief from judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).

         Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), a motion for relief from judgment can be granted 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 heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or,
(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

         The party who seeks to invoke Rule 60(b) bears the burden to establish that its prerequisites are satisfied. See Jinks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 250 F.3d 381, 385 (6th Cir. 2001). A Rule 60(b) motion is properly denied where the movant attempts to use the motion to relitigate the merits of a claim and the allegations are unsubstantiated. See Miles v. Straub, 90 Fed.Appx. 456, 458 (6th Cir. 2004). A movant under Rule 60(b) likewise fails to demonstrate entitlement to relief when he or she simply rephrases the prior allegations that were contained in the original complaint. See Johnson v. Unknown Dellatifa, 357 F.3d 539, 543 (6th Cir. 2004).

         A Rule 60(b)(1) motion for relief from judgment is available to provide relief only when: (1) a party has made an excusable mistake or an attorney has acted without authority, or (2) the judge has made a substantive mistake of law or fact in the final judgment or order. U.S. v. Reyes, 307 F.3d 451, 455 (6th Cir. 2002).

         Plaintiff alleged in his complaints that on July 10, 2018, he was stopped and illegally searched at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport by Defendants Johansene and Bucciarellir, two airport police officers. Plaintiff alleged that the officers seized money from him without a warrant. Plaintiff alleged that evidence from this arrest was used as the basis to revoke his supervised release for his conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute at least five kilograms of a mixture and substance containing cocaine ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.