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

RAPHAEL FLOWERS PLAINTIFF

v. No. 4:23CV131-SA-JMV

CAPTAIN LAQUITA MEEKS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS [83], [84] FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(B)

This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff’s motions [83], [84] for reconsideration of the court’s final judgment. Doc. 77. 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. The court dismissed the instant case without prejudice because the plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the instant case, as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a). The plaintiff argues that on January 2, 2025, long after he filed the instant case in 2023, he submitted a grievance regarding the issues in this case, which, the plaintiff argues, qualifies as exhaustion of administrative remedies. Docs. 83, 84. However, submitting a grievance after filing suit does not qualify as exhaustion. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Gonzalez v. Seal,

(5th Cir. 2012). An order granting relief from judgment 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 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 [83], [84] for reconsideration are DENIED. SO ORDERED, this, the 5th day of November, 2025. /s/ Sharion Aycock SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE