UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EDDIE DILLARD, #254178,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-10702

v. HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO., et al., 

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S LETTER REQUESTS,

HIS SUPPLEMENT, HIS REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE

OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, & HIS REQUEST

FOR REVERSAL AND REMAND [Dkts. ## 35, 36, 37, 38, 39]

The Court has before it Plaintiff’s letter request seeking to reopen this case

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), his “Supplementation of

Original Petition,” his letter request challenging this Court’s dismissal of his civil

rights complaint, his “Motion for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus for

Immediate Discharge from Custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections,”

and his letter request seeking reversal and remand to state court filed on April 4,

2018, November 19, 2018, February 5, 2019, and March 25, 2019, and April 10,

2019, respectively.

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s pro se civil rights complaint as frivolous, for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and on the basis of
immunity and concluded that an appeal could not be taken in good faith on May

27, 2009. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied Plaintiff

permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal on November 5, 2012 finding

that any appeal would be frivolous and then dismissed his appeal for want of

prosecution on December 20, 2012. This Court has denied Plaintiff’s motions for

relief from judgment, to alter the judgment, to reopen the case, and for evidentiary

hearing, as well as his petition for prejudgment interest and his application to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The last of those orders was entered on

December 19, 2013.

Plaintiff again seeks to reinstate his complaint, citing Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b), and he further seeks release from state custody. Under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a district court may grant relief from a final

judgment or order only upon a showing of one of the following reasons: (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 (whether heretofore denominated

intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;

(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, 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

2
prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation

of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

A motion under Rule 60(b)(6) must be made within a reasonable time. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); Conner v. Attorney General, 96 F. App’x 990, 992 (6th

Cir. 2004). The bounds of reasonable time “ordinarily depends on the facts of the

given case including the length and circumstances of the delay, the prejudice to the

opposing party by reason of the delay, and the circumstances compelling equitable

relief.” Olle v. Henry & Wright Corp., 910 F.2d 357, 365 (6th Cir. 1990). A court

has broad discretion in deciding such matters, but that discretion is circumscribed

by public policy favoring finality of judgments and termination of litigation. See

Waifersong, Ltd. v. Classic Music Vending, 976 F.2d 290, 292 (6th Cir. 1992).

Plaintiff did not act within a reasonable time. The Court dismissed his

complaint on May 27, 2009, denied several motions in 2009, and denied his latest

motion in 2013. Under the circumstances of this case, where Plaintiff essentially

seeks reconsideration and raises the same type of arguments already presented to,

and rejected by, this Court, such an extended period is not a reasonable time in

which to seek relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). His requests are therefore

untimely and must be denied.

Plaintiff fails to show that he is entitled to post-judgment relief. The Court

properly dismissed his civil rights complaint as frivolous, for failure to state a

3
claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and on the basis

of immunity. The arguments raised in his latest requests for relief do not invalidate

those rulings. Additionally, Plaintiff may not obtain habeas relief, release from

state custody, or a remand to the state courts in his criminal proceedings, in a civil

rights action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for relief.

[Dkts. ## 35, 36, 37, 38, 39] This case is closed. No further pleadings should be

submitted in this case. Further pleadings will be stricken.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Denise Page Hood 

DENISE PAGE HOOD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 8, 2019

4