Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-1_04-cv-01106/USCOURTS-arwd-1_04-cv-01106-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EL DORADO DIVISION

GLORIA A. WILLIS PLAINTIFF

VS. CASE NO. 04-CV-1106

PILGRIMS PRIDE CORPORATION DEFENDANT

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Gloria Willis’ Rule 60 Motion for Relief from Judgment,

Decree or Order. (Doc. No. 31). Plaintiff asks the Court to set aside the Order entered in this

case by the Hon. Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge, denying her motion for

appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 24). Upon consideration, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s

motion lacks merit. 

Rule 60(b) allows a party relief from a final judgment or order when the ground asserted

is: (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, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the

judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, release, 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. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); See Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 862 F.2d

161, 169 (8 Cir. 1988). Rule 60(b) “provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted

th

only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.” Harley v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866,

Case 1:04-cv-01106-HFB Document 38 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
870 (8 Cir. 2005)(quotations marks and citations omitted). th

In this case, the Court does not find any exceptional circumstances that would afford the

Plaintiff relief under Rule 60(b). Plaintiff seems to argue that the Magistrate Judge was

mistaken in denying her motion for appointment of counsel and that the ends of justice would

best be served with such an appointment. Willis basically disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s

denial of her request for appointment of counsel, stating the she would best be served by having

counsel represent her in this case. However, this Court does not find a mistake of law in Judge

Shepherd’s Order denying her motion. Rule 60(b)(1) does not entitle Plaintiff to relief from the

Magistrate Judge’s Order. Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 60

Relief from Judgment, Decree or Order in regards to the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying her

appointment of counsel should be and hereby is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2 day of May, 2006. nd

 /s/Harry F. Barnes 

Hon. Harry F. Barnes

United States District Judge

Case 1:04-cv-01106-HFB Document 38 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>