Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Parfait v. Dominque

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

June 5, 2018

HARRISON A. PARFAIT, JR.
v.
MS. DOMINQUE, ET AL.

         SECTION “R” (3)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          SARAH S. VANCE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Harrison A. Parfait, Jr. moves for relief from judgment.[1] For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On October 3, 2016, Parfait filed a complaint pro se against Dominique Baio and Renee Lirette (identified as Ms. Dominique and Ms. Renea in the complaint) in the Western District of Louisiana.[2] The case was transferred to this district on January 30, 2017. Defendants are nurses at the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex. Parfait alleges that he suffers from sleep apnea and needs to be treated with a CPAP machine, or risks suffering a heart attack.[3] According to Parfait, he did not receive proper medical attention at the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex even though he told defendants about his condition.[4]

         On May 8, 2017, after the Court was notified that Parfait was no longer incarcerated at the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex, the Magistrate Judge issued an order directing Parfait to notify the Court of his current address by June 8, 2017.[5] Parfait failed to do so, and the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the complaint sua sponte for failure to prosecute.[6] The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and dismissed Parfait's complaint without prejudice on August 8, 2017.[7]

         On March 21, 2018, Parfait moved for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).[8]

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         A district court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion under Rule 60(b). Lyles v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc., 871 F.3d 305, 315 (5th Cir. 2017). Rule 60(b) permits a court to grant relief from a final judgment or order only upon a showing of one of the following:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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