Brown v. Voorhies et al, No. 2:2007cv00013 - Document 269 (S.D. Ohio 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 267 Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Order Pursuant to Rule 60(b). Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 11/2/11. (sem1)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION STEVEN S. BROWN, Plaintiff, Case No. 07-cv-13 JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp v. WARDEN VOORHIES, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff s Motion for Relief from Order Pursuant to Rule 60(b). (ECF No. 267.) In that motion, Plaintiff asks the Court for an order relieving him from this Court s denial of his previous motion to appoint counsel. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies only to final judgments, not interlocutory orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) ( On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding . . . . ). A final judgment or order is one that conclusively determines the rights of the parties, leaving nothing for the court to do but execute the order. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467, 57 L. Ed. 2d 351, 98 S. Ct. 2454 (1978). Denial of a motion to appoint counsel is not a final judgment, and therefore, Rule 60(b) does not apply to it. This Court, however, may modify its prior interlocutory orders in cases still pending as long as no final order has been issued. See Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App x 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004) (district courts have authority to reconsider interlocutory 1 orders and to reopen any part of a case before entry of final judgment). Here, the Court finds no good reason to reexamine its previous denial of Plaintiff s request for counsel. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff s Motion for Relief from Order Pursuant to Rule 60(b). (ECF No. 267.) IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Gregory L. Frost GREGORY L. FROST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.