Douglas v. Warner

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Douglas v. Warner

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY DOUGLAS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-12305 v. Hon. F. Kay Behm JARED WARNER, et al.,

Defendants. ________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Larry Douglas, a Michigan prisoner appearing pro se, filed this action against several Michigan Department of Corrections employees, alleging that his due process rights were violated during prison disciplinary proceedings. The court summarily dismissed the complaint, finding that, assuming the truth of his allegations, Plaintiff’s procedural and substantive due process rights were not implicated: the “mere fact of discipline or the imposition of sanctions in prison does not automatically trigger due process protections.” Williams v. Bass,

63 F.3d 483

, 485 (6th Cir. 1995); ECF No. 6. Plaintiff has filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), arguing that the court erred in dismissing this action. Rule 60(b)(1) permits the court to relieve a party from a final judgment based upon “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Id. Relief may be granted under Rule 60(b)(1) “in only

two situations: (1) when a party has made an excusable mistake or an attorney has acted without authority, or (2) when the judge has made a substantive mistake of law or fact in the final judgment or order.” United

States v. Reyes,

307 F.3d 451, 455

(6th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Plaintiff argues that the court erred by dismissing this action, but in doing so he merely reiterates his mistaken belief that he has a cognizable constitutional claim. Plaintiff does not challenge the authority cited by the

court in its opinion, which it is obligated to follow. See ECF No. 6. Plaintiff has not established that the court has made a “substantive mistake of law or fact.”

Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 8) is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 4, 2025 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown