Samuel Mayo v. Pasadena Police Department, et al, No. 15-20498 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 15-20498 Document: 00513422541 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-20498 Summary Calendar SAMUEL MAYO, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 14, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellant v. PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT; HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-3123 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Samuel Mayo seeks to revive his civil rights claims in this appeal of the district court’s Order denying his request for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We have reviewed the record and briefs on appeal and affirm the district court’s Order. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-20498 Document: 00513422541 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 No. 15-20498 Rule 60(b) provides relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding in the event of mistake or misconduct, newly discovered evidence, fraud or other reasons that justify relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Mayo argues that he was denied such relief because the defendants and the district court committed fraud, misrepresentation and misconduct. The evidence does not support his contentions. Thus, the district court properly concluded that Mayo failed to clearly and convincingly establish the existence of fraud or other misconduct that prevented him from “fully and fairly presenting his case.” Gov’t Fin. Servs. One Ltd. P’ship v. Peyton Place, Inc., 62 F.3d 767, 772 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mayo’s request for relief. AFFIRMED. 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.