1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JACK MANN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-13439 

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

 / 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT [96] 

 On January 27, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation (R&R) [Dkt. #70], recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s 

Motions for Summary Judgment [36, 68], grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

and/or for Summary Judgment [28] as an unenumerated motion under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b), and dismiss the case without prejudice for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies. On January 28, 2016, the Magistrate Judge 

issued a second R&R [73], recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Default Judgment [59] as moot. Plaintiff filed Objections [79] to the R&Rs. 

On March 31, 2016, the Court issued an Order [82] adopting both R&Rs and 

dismissing the case without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies. The Court entered Judgment [83] the same day. 

2:14-cv-13439-AJT-RSW Doc # 99 Filed 12/28/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 1089
2 of 4 

 On June 9, 2016, the Court issued an Order [91] denying Plaintiff’s 59(e) 

Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment [86] and denying other post-judgment 

motions as moot. On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a motion that the Court 

construed as a Motion for Relief from Judgment [92].1

 The Court denied that 

motion in an Order [94] issued on August 8, 2016. Plaintiff now moves the Court 

to issue relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

That rule provides as follows: 

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal 

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 

following reasons: 

 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, 

could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 

Rule 59(b); 

 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 

 (4) the judgment is void; 

 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is 

based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or 

applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 

 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 

 

1

 Plaintiff titled the motion “Motion to Recall the Mandate Back to November 19, 

2014 When this Court Issued an Order [11] Dismissing Former Defendants from 

this Case as this Was Done in Error: and Motion for Plaintiff Jack Mann to Be 

Allowed to Submit an Amended Complaint to this Court Showing that the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act Administrative Remedies Were Unavailable to Plaintiff— 

Which Began in FCI Milan—Continued at FCI Allenwood Where the Remedies 

Were Rendered Unavailable: and Motion for this Court to Order the Release [of] 

Any and All Information that Was Submitted to the Regional Office in Kansas 

City, KS as well as Any Remedy Information Submitted to the Central Office in 

Washington, D.C. Using the Remedy Process as well as All Responses and 

Receipts in the Process: and Motion for Other Relief.” 

2:14-cv-13439-AJT-RSW Doc # 99 Filed 12/28/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 1090
3 of 4 

A Rule 60(b) movant seeking relief under the “any other reason” provision must 

prove “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which are not addressed by the 

first five numbered clauses of the Rule . . . [and which constitute] unusual and 

extreme situations where principles of equity mandate relief.” Jinks v. 

AlliedSignal, Inc., 250 F.3d 381, 387 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Olle v. Henry & 

Wright Corp., 910 F.2d 357, 365 (6th Cir. 1990)). Rule 60(b) “does not provide 

relief simply because litigants belatedly present new facts or arguments after the 

district court has made its final ruling.” Id. at 387. A Rule 60(b) movant’s request 

to amend his complaint does not lower the rule’s standards for relief. Leisure 

Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 612, 616 (6th Cir. 2010). 

 The instant motion presents virtually the same arguments raised in Plaintiff’s 

earlier motions. In denying Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) and 60(b) motions, the Court 

reasoned, in part, as follows: 

Plaintiff failed to identify, prior to the entry of judgment, any barrier 

that rendered the grievance process unavailable to him prior to filing 

suit. Even if Plaintiff had evidence that such a barrier existed, that 

evidence would not be grounds for post-judgment relief under Rule 

59(e) unless it was newly discovered. Plaintiff has not claimed to 

have newly discovered any evidence. 

The Court denies this motion for the same reasons. 

 Accordingly, 

2:14-cv-13439-AJT-RSW Doc # 99 Filed 12/28/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 1091
4 of 4 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment [96] is 

DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Arthur J. Tarnow 

 Arthur J. Tarnow 

Dated: December 28, 2016 Senior United States District Judge 

2:14-cv-13439-AJT-RSW Doc # 99 Filed 12/28/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 1092