Daniels v. Caldwell, No. 3:2014cv00856 - Document 12 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 11/16/2015. Copy mailed to Daniels on 11/16/2015.(tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Daniels v. Caldwell Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division Cl JOSEPH A. DANIELS, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. PAUL E. 3:14CV856 CALDWELL, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Joseph A. and m forma Daniels, pauperis, JUDGMENT" wherein April 10, 2014, he filed seeks Case No. granting defendant No. 1.) a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se this action entitled ''relief from 3;ll-cv-461-REP, summary Daniels believes judgment ''[t]he is judgment entered FOR on where such judgment void." judgment "MOTION is void (Mot. 1, in that ECF the plaintiff was denied his Due Process Right to have the disputed material facts decided by a jury . As background, December 18, . . ." (Id.) by Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on 2013, the Court granted Defendant Paul E. Caldwell's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the action as factually frivolous. 2013 WL 6713129, at *4 See Daniels v. Caldwell, No. (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2013) 3:11CV461, Subsequently, ^ The Court explained that: Daniels's claim of deliberate indifference is predicated upon the allegation that Dr. Caldwell unnecessarily removed Daniel's deltoid muscle and failed to provide Daniels with physical therapy following Daniel's surgery. . . . Such a claim is Dockets.Justia.com on April 10, 2014, Reconsideration (ECF No. Circuit Cir. 81.) under Court Federal denied Rule Daniels The United v. 200 without (2014) . the Civil Caldwell, States 569 Supreme petition for a writ of certiorari. Ct. of Daniels's Motion Procedure for 59(e). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth affirmed. 2014). the Court he ^"INDEPENDENT ACTION" desired, from 159 (4th Caldwell, 135 S. the appeals process Daniels seeking relief App'x denied Daniels's Daniels v. Having reached the end of result F. filed the the instant judgment." (Mot. 1.) As a preliminary matter, Daniels identifies that the "judgment" he challenges is the Court's denial of his Motion for Reconsideration appears Caldwell to on April challenge December granted summary dispute existed as factually Caldwell 18, the 2014. Court's 2013. judgment in To grant Daniels error the of not The remove because evidence Daniel's contrary, Daniels summary judgment argues to whether Daniels[']s frivolous. did 10, "a that the material factual reflects that Dr. muscle and provided Daniels with physical therapy following his surgery. Indeed, Daniels bears sole responsibility for the termination of his physical therapy. Because the evidence reflects that Dr. Caldwell provided reasonable medical care, rather than acting with deliberate indifference, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted. Daniels's claim will be dismissed. Daniels, 2013 WL 6713129, at *3. Court shoulder muscle deltoid to was removed." (Mot. 2.) Daniels contends that the judgment is ''VOID" because the Court improperly granted summary judgment for Caldwell ''because Daniels Roseboro notice." to identify challenge a (Id. a did at 6 procedural judgment not respond to the (emphasis added)). vehicle in another that case defendant's Daniels fails authorizes by an him independent to civil action. Generously construing Daniels's submission, he may intend to bring an action pursuant Civil Rule Procedure ("Rule to 60(b)(4)") and 60(d). explains to . . that Federal "[Rule 60] does 60(d) (1) Inc. of not Civil limit . Procedure 60(d) court's power a . entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, proceeding." grave Rule . Under Fed. 60(b) (4) . . of judgment, order, or proceeding" if "the judgment is void." Pr. party Rule final Civ. "the court may relieve a Federal from R. 60(b)(4) 60(b)(4) it appears that relief "is miscarriage V. of available quotation only justice." Cap'l City Bank, (internal Fed. R. Civ. 614 F. marks if 60(d)(1). required Matthews, App'x 969, omitted) P. to Wilson 972 prevent a & Matthews, (11th Cir. (citations Rule 2015) omitted). Assuming without deciding that Daniels may bring an independent civil action alleging that a 60(b)(4), under that he fails rule. judgment is void pursuant to demonstrate that he is to Rule entitled to relief A judgment is "void" for the purposes of Rule 60(b) ''only if the court rendering the decision lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law." 2005) Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d 410, 412 {4th Cir. {citing Eberhardt 167 F.3d 861, the concept 871 of v. Integrated Design {4th Cir. a 'void' 1999)). order Courts under Rule & Constr., ''narrowly construe 60{b)(4) because of the threat to the finality of judgments . (citation omitted). Daniels fails to Inc., provide any precisely . . ." Id. persuasive argument suggesting that the Court lacked jurisdiction or acted in a manner states inconsistent that the with due "judgment is void process. in At that the most, Daniels plaintiff was denied his Due Process Right to have to disputed material facts decided by a jury . . . ." (Mot. 1.) Contrary to Daniels's suggestion, no material dispute of fact existed. Daniels failed to despite respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment provided with appropriate Roseboro notice. 6713129, "chose (Mot. that at to 2.) *1. rest upon his A review of Daniels perjury, In the instant Motion, did thus, not the the swear previously record to complaint his See Daniels, 2013 WL Daniels states that he filed in that sworn to complaint." action demonstrates complaint failed being under constitute penalty of admissible evidence.^ ^ Daniels only swore to his application to proceed pauperis under penalty of perjury. ^ forma Forma Pauperis Affidavit The Court discerns no due process violation in the grant of summary judgment for (citation omitted) Caldwell. Eberhardt, Rule 60(b)(4) procedural to motion 30 F.3d 1307, 1310 due process (10th Cir. 1994) arguments where prerequisites—particularly, demonstrate was ''void" that the within the action legally See 28 U.S.C. dismissed as denial meaning (ECF No. be 1) of (rejecting notice Thus, of Rule his factually and Daniels § 2255 60(b)(4). will be denied. and The frivolous. 1915(e)(2). The Clerk will be directed to note action for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. The 871 ''fundamental adequate Court's Daniels's Motion for Judgment will at to litigate the action); opportunity to be heard-were fully satisfied"). fails F.3d (explaining no due process violation occurs when litigant "had ample opportunity" Orner v. Shalala, 167 Clerk is directed to the disposition of the § 1915(g). send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Daniels. It is so ORDERED. /s/ Robert E. /• / ,/ ^ Payne Senior United States District Judge Date: Richmond, Virginia at 1, Daniels, No. No. 1, 3;llcv461 (E.D. Va. at 6.) 5 filed July 20, 2011) (ECF
]]>
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.
