IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION

CHARLES BARR PLAINTIFF v. No. 4:18CV82-GHD-DAS STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JOHN DOE 1 JOHN DOE 2 JOHN DOE 3 DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS [36], [37] FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff's motions [36], [37] for reconsideration of the court’s final judgment dismissing this case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. These are the fourth and fifth motions seeking reconsideration of the court’s dismissal of this case. The court interprets the motions, using the liberal standard for pro se litigants set forth in Haines y. Kerner,

(1972), as motions 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 plaintiff seems to reiterate the arguments in his complaint; he also argues that the court was incorrect in its ruling denying pauper status on appeal. 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 requests [36], [37] for reconsideration are

DENIED. SO ORDERED, this, the 138, of Marc 2021.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE