UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KARLOS LATWIAN HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case Number: 09-CV-11006

Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow

G. ROBERT COTTON CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, et. al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER 

DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER

I. Introduction

On March 18, 2009, Karlos Latwian Harris (“Plaintiff”), a Michigan prisoner, filed a civil

complaint seeking damages, which the Court construed as a complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. (Dkt. # 1.) In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants arbitrarily seized his private

property, namely taking his picture, by means of intimidation, extortion, and fraud. He named the

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility and Sergeant Parsons, an employee, as Defendants in the

action. Plaintiff sought monetary damages and injunctive relief. After careful review, the Court

dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Before the Court now is Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment or order, filed pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). (Dkt. # 7.) For the reasons stated below, the motion

is denied.

2:09-cv-11006-AJT-VMM Doc # 10 Filed 05/05/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 81
2

II. Discussion

A Rule 60(b) motion may be granted only for certain specified reasons: (1) mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud,

misrepresentation, or the like; (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 prospective application; or (6) any other

reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. When none of these enumerated

examples of Rule 60(b) apply, relief may only be available when exceptional or extraordinary

circumstances are present. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Byers, 151 F.3d 574, 578 (6th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff

specifics that his motion should be granted under 60(b)(4).

The Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint was subject to dismissal because he challenged

the Prison’s right to take his picture– which failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint was conclusory. Conclusory,

unsupported allegations of the deprivation of rights protected by the United States Constitution or

federal laws are insufficient to state a claim. See Morgan v. Church’s Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10,

12 (6th Cir. 1987); Chapman v. City of Detroit, 808 F.2d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 1986). The Court found

that Plaintiff never offered anything beyond his conclusory allegations to suggest that Defendants’

actions were a violation of some official policy. See Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir.

2003). 

Against that backdrop, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s 60(b)(4) motion for relief from

judgment, because he has failed to offer any arguments which this Court has not already previously

considered and rejected in its prior Order. The Court properly dismissed his civil rights complaint

2:09-cv-11006-AJT-VMM Doc # 10 Filed 05/05/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 82
3

as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. The motion for relief from judgment is therefore denied. 

III. Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for relief from judgment or

order [dkt. # 7] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Arthur J. Tarnow 

Arthur J. Tarnow

United States District Judge

Dated: May 5, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of record

on May 5, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Catherine A. Pickles 

Judicial Secretary

2:09-cv-11006-AJT-VMM Doc # 10 Filed 05/05/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 83