ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
DAVID BRAMLETTE, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on plaintiff Otis Oliver McCray ("McCray")'s Motion for Relief from Judgment
Plaintiff Otis Oliver McCray ("McCray") was charged on March 7, 2007, as a habitual offender in the Circuit Court of Wilkinson County with murder, robbery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. McCray pled guilty to lesser charges of manslaughter and robbery as a habitual offender and was sentenced to serve fifteen and twenty years on the charges, respectively.
On December 7, 2016, McCray filed a pro se complaint in the Circuit Court of Wilkinson County, asserting claims under state and federal law in connection with defendant Davasha Nelson ("Nelson")'s alleged forgery of McCray's 2007 criminal indictment. Nelson timely removed the action to federal court on January 27, 2017, and subsequently filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the plaintiff's state and federal claims.
Adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker, the Court entered an Order (docket entry 15) on May 31, 2017, granting Nelson's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Federal Claims (docket entry 9) and dismissing the plaintiff's federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with prejudice to their being asserted again until the conditions set forth in
McCray now moves for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (docket entry 18). Though the subject of McCray's motion is somewhat unclear, the Court construes the motion as one seeking relief from the judgment entered on May 31, 2017, which dismissed McCray's federal claims.
Under Rule 60, the Court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for the following reasons:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The entirety of McCray's motion consists of a recitation of the six grounds for relief set forth in Rule 60(b) and an observation that "[he] thinks this is clearly extraordinary circumstances." Doc. 18. Yet, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances, mistake, fraud, newly discovered evidence or otherwise, which would justify relief under Rule 60.
As set forth in the Court's May Order, McCray's federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are foreclosed by
Furthermore, McCray cannot maintain his federal claims based on Nelson's alleged violation of a criminal statute because "a private party may not enforce criminal statutes through a civil action."
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment (docket entry 18) is DENIED.