Darwich et al v. US Department of Justice et al, No. 2:2013cv10757 - Document 27 (E.D. Mich. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 26 Motion Motion Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(B)(6). Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (KGri)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Darwich et al v. US Department of Justice et al Doc. 27 Case 2:13-cv-10757-RHC-MKM ECF No. 27, PageID.178 Filed 09/07/23 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________ ALI DARWICH, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 13-10757 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. ________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(B)(6) This civil action was dismissed almost ten years ago for being barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), bring claims against a Defendant entitled to absolute immunity, and for otherwise failing to state a claim. (ECF No. 20, 24.) Plaintiff did not appeal. Plaintiff now brings a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, stating that newly discovered evidence requires that the judgment be set aside. The court is unpersuaded. First, Plaintiff’s motion, filed almost a decade after his case was dismissed, is untimely. Under Rule 60(c)(1), any motion brought under Rule 60 must be filed within “a reasonable time,” and if based on newly discovered evidence, within one year after entry of judgment. Plaintiff’s delay under these circumstances is unreasonable and his motion will be denied as untimely. Moreover, even if the motion were timely, it is nonsensical as it does little more than expound on Plaintiff’s wild conspiracy theories at the heart of this lawsuit. His motions do not address the legal reasons why his case was Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:13-cv-10757-RHC-MKM ECF No. 27, PageID.179 Filed 09/07/23 Page 2 of 2 dismissed as barred under Heck v. Humphrey, doctrines of immunity, and for failure to state a claim. As such, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (ECF 26) is DENIED. s/Robert H. Cleland ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE / Dated: September 7, 2023 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, September 7, 2023, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Kim Grimes Deputy Clerk S:\Cleland\Cleland\CHD\Criminal\Darwich Criminal\13-10757.DARWICH.Rule60.chd.docx 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.
