FOIRN T THHEE N UONRITTEHDE RSNTA DTISETSR DIICSTT ROIFC MT ICSOSIUSRSTIP PI OXFORD DIVISION

RONALD E. GILLETTE PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:18CV106-DAS

CORE CIVIC, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s final judgment [95]. The court interprets the motion, using the liberal standard for pro se litigants set forth in Haines v. Kerner,

(1972), as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under FED. R. CIV. P. 60. An order granting relief under Rule 60 must be based upon: (1) clerical mistakes, (2) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, (3) newly discovered evidence, (4) fraud or other misconduct of an adverse party, (5) a void judgment, or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the order.

The court dismissed this case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The plaintiff alleges, however, that there were alternative grievance procedures, which he tried unsuccessfully to use. However, the “alternative” grievance procedures to which he refers are merely a part of the regular grievance process, which he did not complete. As such, the plaintiff has neither asserted nor proven any of the specific justifications for relief from an order permitted under Rule 60. In addition, the plaintiff has not presented “any other reason justifying relief from the operation” of the judgment. As such, the plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this, the 23rd day of March, 2021.

/s/ David A. Sanders DAVID A. SANDERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE