United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
JOANN B. SEMPLE, Plaintiff,
DESOTO POLICE DEPT., ET AL., Defendants.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REBECCA RUTHERFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an Order of
the District Court, this case has been referred to the United
States magistrate judge. The Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:
proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint on
June 12, 2017. On July 3, 2017, the Court sent Plaintiff a
Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire seeking additional
information regarding her claims. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff
failed to respond to the Questionnaire, and on October 10,
2017, the District Court dismissed the complaint for want of
prosecution under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
December 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the
dismissal and reopen this case (ECF No. 13), and on December
29, 2017, she filed an amended motion to set aside the
dismissal (ECF No. 14). In her motions, Plaintiff states she
was involved in an accident that caused her to be immobile
for several months. She also claimed she did not receive
notice of the dismissal of her complaint, and that she only
learned of the dismissal when she visited the Clerk's
Office on December 20, 2017.
January 31, 2018, in response to Plaintiff's motions to
reopen, the Court re-sent the Magistrate Judge's
Questionnaire to Plaintiff. The Questionnaire stated that
Plaintiff's response was due thirty days from the date of
the Order. Plaintiff did not respond to the Questionnaire.
Instead, on March 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave
to amend her complaint to add a defendant (ECF No. 17). On
March 26, 2018, the Court again sent Plaintiff the Magistrate
Judge's Questionnaire and ordered her to respond to the
Questionnaire within thirty days. Plaintiff has never
responded to the Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire.
Rule 60(b)(6), the Court may relieve a party from a final
judgment for the following reasons:
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,
could not have been discovered in time to move for a new
trial under Rule 59(b);
fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
judgment is void;
judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying ...