# Brown v. Reiser

> District Court, S.D. Mississippi · November 24, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10246943

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Mississippi
- **Decided:** November 24, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10246943

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

CARLOS DEMOND BROWN, # 68665-380 PETITIONER

VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21CV423-HTW-LGI

WARDEN S. REISER RESPONDENT

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION

BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to 60(b)(6) and
60(b)(4) [5], filed by pro se petitioner Carlos Demond Brown. He is incarcerated with the
Bureau of Prisons, and he filed this habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On July 27, 2021,
the court dismissed this case, because it did not meet the savings clause. On October 6, Brown
filed the instant motion to reconsider. The court has considered petitioner’s submission and the
relevant legal authority. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
DISCUSSION
Since Brown filed the motion over twenty-eight days after the Final Judgment, this
motion shall be treated as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e); Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp., 885 F.2d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 1989). Under this
rule:
. . . [T]he court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment . . . for the following
reasons:

(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 prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Brown claims there is a “grave miscarriage of justice” because the Magistrate Judge
never filed her Report and Recommendation; therefore, he did not have an opportunity to object
before the court dismissed his case. (Mot. 60(b)(6) at 2). Additionally, Brown revives his
claims that his superseding information and indictment were invalid.
These points are not well taken. First, there was no Report and Recommendation filed,
because the Magistrate Judge did not issue one. Therefore, there was no basis to object.
Second, Brown does not argue that the court erred in determining the savings clause was not
satisfied. Brown presents no other basis for reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and
Order of Dismissal [3].
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJDUGED that, for the reasons stated above,
pro se petitioner Carlos Demond Brown’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to 60(b)(6)
and 60(b)(4) [5] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this the 23rd day of November, 2021.

s/ HENRY T. WINGATE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Order Denying Reconsideration 2
Civil action no. 3:21cv423-HTW-LGI

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10246943. Public record. Not legal advice.