Smith v. Sevier et al, No. 3:2018cv00639 - Document 95 (N.D. Ind. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The court DENIES Mr. Smith's Rule 60(b) motion 83 and DENIES AS MOOT his motion to introduce evidence 92 . Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 4/18/22. (nhc)

Download PDF
Smith v. Sevier et al Doc. 95 USDC IN/ND case 3:18-cv-00639-RLM-MGG document 95 filed 04/18/22 page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION DAVID SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. 3:18-CV-639-RLM-MGG MARK SEVIER, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER David Smith, a prisoner without a lawyer, moves the court to reopen this case. On August 2, 2021, after the time expired for Mr. Smith to file a response to the defendants’ summary judgment motion, the court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissed this case. ECF 79, 80. On November 23, Mr. Smith sent the court a letter saying that he sent a response to the summary judgment motion to the court, but the court didn’t get it. ECF 83. Mr. Smith further asserted he didn’t know his case had been dismissed until after he wrote the court a letter on October 21, 2021. Id. The court construed Mr. Smith’s letter as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reopen this case. The defendants filed a response to Mr. Smith’s construed Rule 60(b) motion, asserting he hadn’t provided any evidence he tried to submit a timely response to the summary judgment motion or that his failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The court instructed Mr. Smith to file a reply to the defendants’ response demonstrating and providing evidence showing he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1). The court instructed Mr. Smith to provide Dockets.Justia.com USDC IN/ND case 3:18-cv-00639-RLM-MGG document 95 filed 04/18/22 page 2 of 2 evidence showing (1) what steps he took to submit a timely response to the defendants’ summary judgment motion, including how and when he mailed his response, and (2) that he did not receive this court’s August 2 order before October 21. Mr. Smith has now filed a reply to the defendant’s response, titled as a motion to introduce evidence. ECF 92. Mr. Smith’s motion doesn’t address whether he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1). He attaches numerous exhibits, consisting of various medical records, requests for health care, and offender grievances. ECF 92-1. But none of this evidence shows he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1), because it doesn’t show what steps he took to timely submit a response to the defendants’ summary judgment motion or lack of receipt of the court’s August 2 order before October 21. Mr. Smith hasn’t demonstrated he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). For these reasons, the court DENIES Mr. Smith’s Rule 60(b) motion (ECF 83) and DENIES AS MOOT his motion to introduce evidence (ECF 92). SO ORDERED this 18th day of April, 2022. s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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.