Williams v. Danheim et al, No. 3:2016cv00361 - Document 28 (S.D. Tex. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. DE 26 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel IS DENIED as moot, DE 27 MOTION for reconsideration is DENIED.(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(ltrevino, 3)

Download PDF
Williams v. Danheim et al Doc. 28 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION MONGO JA’BARR WILLIAMS TDCJ # 01269681, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN JAMES DANHEIM, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § July 22, 2019 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-361 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Mongo Williams filed this civil rights action complaining of inadequate medical care. On April 30, 2019, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims and entered final judgment (Dkt. 19, Dkt. 20). On July 17, 2019, Williams filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment (Dkt. 27). Because the motion was filed more than twenty-eight days after judgment was entered, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) applies. See Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n.2 (5th Cir. 2012). Rule 60(b) is an uncommon means for relief, and “final judgments should not be lightly reopened.” Lowry Dev., L.L.C. v. Groves & Associates Ins., Inc., 690 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal citation, alteration, and quotation marks omitted). A Rule 60(b) motion may not be used to raise arguments that could have been raised prior to judgment or to argue new legal theories. Dial One of the Mid-S., Inc. v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 401 F.3d 603, 607 (5th Cir. 2005). 1/2 Dockets.Justia.com The Court’s prior opinion dismissed Williams’ case because his allegations that Defendant denied him ice and crutches for his ankle injury failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. 19). His complaints regarding the processing of his grievances also failed to state a claim under the Due Process Clause (id.). Williams’ current motion makes arguments that were or could have been made before entry of judgment and presents no basis for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b). Therefore, the motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 27) is DENIED. In addition, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 26) is DENIED as moot because this civil action is closed. The Clerk will provide a copy of this order to the parties. SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 22nd day of July, 2019. ___________________________________ George C. Hanks Jr. United States District Judge 2/2

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.