IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 DALLAS DIVISION 

GLENN WINNINGHAM, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-1752-S (BH) 

 ) 

CORY BLOUNT, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

 Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the Demand to Re-Open Case, received 

on September 6, 2023 (doc. 65), should be liberally construed as a motion seeking relief from 

judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Glenn Winningham (Plaintiff) filed a complaint with numerous supporting documents 

against numerous defendants in a long-closed civil action. (See docs. 4, 6-16.) By order dated 

August 10, 2022, the complaint was unfiled in the closed civil action and filed in this newly opened 

civil action. (See doc. 3.) He was ordered several times by orders dated August 12, 2022, August 

31, 2022, and September 26, 2022, to pay the filing fee or submit a fully completed and signed 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), and to file an amended complaint that 

complied with Fed. R. Civ. 8(a). (See docs. 5, 25, 28.) Each order specifically advised that a 

failure to comply could result in the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute or comply with 

court orders. (See id.) After Plaintiff failed to comply with the orders, it was recommended on 

November 18, 2022, that his incomplete IFP application be denied and the case be dismissed under 

1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred for full case management. 

Case 3:22-cv-01752-S-BH Document 66 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID 33678
2 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court, unless he filed a fully 

completed IFP application and an amended complaint that complied with Rule 8(a) within the time 

for objecting to the recommendation. (See doc. 40.) Plaintiff did not file either within the objection 

period, and on December 13, 2022, the recommendation was accepted, his IFP application was 

denied, and judgment was entered dismissing the case under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or 

comply with court orders. (See docs. 41-42.) 

Since the dismissal of this action, Plaintiff has filed forms and many lengthy documents, 

none of which comply with Rule 8(a) pleading requirements or are a completed and signed IFP 

application, and he has not paid the filing fee. (See 43-63.) He now seeks to reopen this case 

because he “has filed a Fourth Amended Complaint and the ‘payment’ issue is resolved by the 

failure of the Court’s BAR members to provide the Demandant with a specie of payment a found 

in the unsigned Clerk’s letter, and its attached Form 1020 Final Notice of Default[.]” (doc. 65.) 

II. RULE 60(b) 

Plaintiff’s filing may be liberally construed as a motion seeking relief under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Smith v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, Institutional Div., 79 F. 

App’x 61, 62 (5th Cir. 2003). 

“A motion asking the court to reconsider a prior ruling is evaluated either as a motion to 

‘alter or amend a judgment’ under Rule 59(e) or as a motion for ‘relief from a final judgment, 

order, or proceeding’ under Rule 60(b),” depending on “when the motion was filed.” Demahy v. 

Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n.2 (5th Cir. 2012); see also Williams v. Thaler, 602 

F.3d 291, 303 (5th Cir. 2010) (“When a litigant files a motion seeking a change in judgment, courts 

typically determine the appropriate motion based on whether the litigant filed the motion within 

Rule 59(e)’s time limit.”), abrogated on other grounds by Thomas v. Lumpkin, 995 F.3d 432, 440 

Case 3:22-cv-01752-S-BH Document 66 Filed 09/08/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID 33679
3 

(5th Cir. 2021). Because Plaintiff’s motion was filed nearly nine months after entry of judgment, 

it is properly construed as arising under Rule 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (requiring motion 

to be filed within 28 days of entry of judgment). 

Rule 60(b) provides that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for the 

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 

evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered earlier; (3) fraud, 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment 

has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or it is based on an earlier judgment that has been 

reversed or vacated, or applying the judgment prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other 

reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6). A Rule 60(b) motion must be made within 

a reasonable time and, for reasons (1), (2), and (3), no longer than one year after judgment was 

entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 

Because Plaintiff does not invoke any of the reasons for relief from judgment under the 

first five paragraphs of Rule 60(b), it is considered under paragraph (6), which is the “catch-all” 

clause. See Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212, 215-16 (5th Cir. 2002). This paragraph is “‘a residual 

clause used to cover unforeseen contingencies; that is, it is a means for accomplishing justice in 

exceptional circumstances.’” Steverson v. GlobalSantaFe Corp., 508 F.3d 300, 303 (5th Cir. 

2007) (quoting Stipelcovich v. Sand Dollar Marine, Inc., 805 F.2d 599, 604-05 (5th Cir. 1986)). 

Motions under this clause “will be granted only if extraordinary circumstances are present.” Hess, 

281 F.3d at 216 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 

635 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1981), the Fifth Circuit set forth the following factors to be considered when 

evaluating such a motion: (1) that final judgments should not lightly be disturbed; (2) that a Rule 

60(b) motion should not be used as a substitute for appeal; (3) that the rule should be liberally 

Case 3:22-cv-01752-S-BH Document 66 Filed 09/08/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID 33680
4 

construed in order to achieve substantial justice; (4) whether the motion was made within a 

reasonable time; (5) whether, if the case was not decided on its merits due to a default or dismissal, 

the interest in deciding the case on its merits outweighs the interest in the finality of the judgment 

and there is merit in the claim or defense; (6) whether, if the judgment was rendered on the merits, 

the movant had a fair opportunity to present his claims; (7) whether there are intervening equities 

that would make it inequitable to grant relief; and (8) any other factors relevant to the justice of 

the judgment under attack. Id. at 402. 

Plaintiff fails to show a basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The document that appears to 

be his alleged “Fourth Amendment Complaint” is over 150 pages long, excluding attachments, 

and still does not comply with Rule 8(a). (See doc. 44.) He also has not paid the filing fee or 

submitted a completed and signed IFP application as previously ordered. A court may dismiss a 

complaint for failure to pay the filing fee as ordered. See Wilson v. Moreno, 95 F.3d 46 (5th Cir. 

1996) (finding that the district court did not err in dismissing case where plaintiff did not comply 

with the court order to file application to proceed IFP or pay the filing fee). It may also dismiss 

an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 

835 F.2d 1126, 1127(5th Cir. 1988) (involving § 1983 prisoner action). Plaintiff also has not 

alleged extraordinary circumstances such that denial of his motion would be “so unwarranted as 

to constitute an abuse of discretion.” Vafaiyan v. City of Wichita Falls, 398 F. App’x 989, 990 

(5th Cir. 2010) (noting standard of review for denial of Rule 60(b) motions). Nor would granting 

his motion be consistent with the considerations listed in Seven Elves. He still has not paid the 

filing fee or submitted a fully completed and signed IFP application, nor has he filed an amended 

complaint compliant with Rule 8(a). 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01752-S-BH Document 66 Filed 09/08/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID 33681
5 

III. RECOMMENDATION 

The Demand to Re-Open Case, received on September 6, 2023 (doc. 65), should be 

liberally construed as a motion seeking relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b) and DENIED. Further, because of Plaintiff’s continued frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise 

abusive post-judgment filings, the Court should order that any future pleadings in this case be 

docketed for administrative purposes only and terminated, and that no action will be taken on those 

filings. He should also be warned that continued frivolous post-judgment motions in this case 

could subject him to sanctions, including monetary sanctions and a bar on additional filings in this 

district, unless he first obtains leave of court and pays the applicable filing fee.

SIGNED this 8th day of September, 2023. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT 

 A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties 

in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, 

and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with 

a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection 

must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis 

for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates 

by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file 

specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and 

legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except 

upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 

(5th Cir. 1996). 

Case 3:22-cv-01752-S-BH Document 66 Filed 09/08/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID 33682