Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shaw v. Toole

United States District Court, Southern District of Georgia, Statesboro Division

January 26, 2015

DEXTER SHAW, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT TOOLE; JANET BREWTON; and JANE DOE, Defendants.

ORDER

B. AVANT EDENFIELD JUDGE

Dexter Shaw filed a Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. ECF No. 12. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Shaw's Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Shaw filed his Complaint on October 16. 2014. ECF No. 1. He also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). ECF No. 2. On October 17, 2014, the magistrate judge granted Shaw IFP status. ECF No. 3. The magistrate judge also ordered Shaw to provide two documents: a prisoner trust fund account statement, id. at 2, and a consent to collection of fees from that trust account, id. at 3. The magistrate judge ordered Shaw to produce them by November 17, 2014. Id.

Shaw provided the documents on October 27, 2014. ECF No. 4. However, they were identified incorrectly on the docket as a motion to proceed IFP. See Id. The following day. the magistrate judge, interpreting the documents as a motion to proceed IFP, issued an order dismissing the documents as moot. ECF No. 5.

On December 18, 2014, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice on the grounds that Shaw had failed to comply with the magistrate judge's order of October 17.2014. ECF No. 10.

II. ANALYSIS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment for several reasons, including "mistake, inadvertence. surprise, or excusable neglect, " or for "any other reason that justifies relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), (6).

Here, Shaw's action should not have been dismissed. After a review of the record in this case, the Court finds that Shaw did fulfill all the requirements set forth in the magistrate judge's order on October 17, 2014. The incorrect entry on the docket led to the inaccurate conclusion that Shaw had not provided the documents. Since Shaw did timely provide the documents, his action should proceed.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Shaw's Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 12. The clerk is DIRECTED to reopen this case. Shaw's motion for a preliminary injunction and for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 8, is again referred to the magistrate judge for consideration.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.