UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NA’IM ABDUL-MATEEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS BELL and JANE DOE,

Defendants. 

 /

Case No. 09-CV-13710

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Na’im Abdul-Mateen, a Michigan prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief

from the court’s judgment dismissing his complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

court finds that the motion is not timely filed and, in the alternative, that the law-of-thecase doctrine bars relief. 

Plaintiff filed a § 1983 complaint against the warden of Gus Harrison Correctional

Facility in Adrian, Michigan, and an unknown member of the nursing staff, alleging a

violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. He alleges that Defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when they assigned him to a top bunk,

despite his having an injured knee which required a bottom bunk assignment. He

claims that he suffered permanent injury to his knee when he fell while getting down

from the upper bunk. Plaintiff also filed a motion to compel Defendant Thomas Bell to

respond to interrogatories designed to assist Plaintiff in identifying the unknown nurse. 

The court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Charles Binder, who

issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting that Defendant’s motion to dismiss

2:09-cv-13710-RHC-CEB Doc # 32 Filed 09/26/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 135
2

should be granted and denying the motion to compel. On April 28, 2010, the court

issued an “Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Objections; Accepting and

Incorporating Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation; Denying Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel and Granting Defendant Bell’s Motion to Dismiss.” Plaintiff appealed

the court’s decision. On January 5, 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Abdul-Mateen

v. Bell, No. 10-1635 (6th Cir. Jan. 5, 2011). 

On September 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed the pending “Motion for Relief from

Judgment” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). He seeks relief from the court’s order

dismissing his complaint and denying the motion to compel. Rule 60(b)(1) motions

must be brought “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Plaintiff’s motion is untimely because it was filed over four months after

the one-year limitation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) expired. 

Moreover, even if the motion had been timely, relief from judgment is not

warranted. Plaintiff seeks relief from judgment on the grounds that (i) the complaint

alleged facts sufficient to show that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his

medical needs; and (ii) his discovery request should have been granted. The law-ofthe-case doctrine “generally bars the district court from reconsidering those issues that

the court of appeals has already explicitly or implicitly resolved.” Keith v. Bobby, 618

F.3d 594, 599 (6th Cir. 2010). The Court of Appeals addressed both of these claims in

its decision affirming this court’s judgment. In other words, the claims were explicitly

resolved by the Court of Appeals. Therefore, this court may not now reconsider those

issues. 

2:09-cv-13710-RHC-CEB Doc # 32 Filed 09/26/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 136
3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment

[Dkt. # 31] is DENIED. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 26, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, September 26, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-13710.ABDUL-MATEEN.deny 60(b)(1).wpd

2:09-cv-13710-RHC-CEB Doc # 32 Filed 09/26/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 137