The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:22-CV-161-FL
VALERIE ARROYO, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
ORDER
)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )
Department of Justice and UNITED )
STATES; )
)
Defendants. )
)
This matter comes before the court on pro se plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and motion for new trial pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a). (DE 106). The issues raised are ripe for ruling. For the reasons
that follow, plaintiff’s motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
The relevant procedural history and facts of the case are as follows. Plaintiff commenced
this action pro se March 8, 2022, in the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina, alleging
that various federal and state judges violated her constitutional and civil rights and committed torts
against her by issuing injunctions against plaintiff. Defendant North Carolina removed the case to
this court April 25, 2022. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand May 13, 2022 and a motion for
preliminary injunction May 26, 2022. Defendant United States filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction and defendant North Carolina filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
sovereign immunity, and lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction on May 27, 2022.
By order entered October 7, 2022, the court granted defendants’ motions and denied
plaintiff’s motions, finding that jurisdiction was lacking and that, and in the alternative, that
plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The clerk entered judgment and closed the case. Thereafter,
plaintiff filed the instant motion.
COURT’S DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) authorizes a district court to “grant a new trial on all
or some of the issues” following a jury or bench trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1). Under Rule 59(a),
a motion for new trial should be granted if “1) the verdict is against the clear weight of the
evidence, or 2) is based upon evidence which is false, or 3) will result in a miscarriage of justice,
even though there may be substantial evidence which would prevent the direction of a verdict.”
Doe v. Fairfax County School Board, 1 F.4th 257, 269 (4th Cir. 2021).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides for relief from a judgment. See Katyle v.
Penn Nat’l Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 470 n. 4 (4th Cir. 2011). Under Rule 60(b), “a moving
party must show that his motion is timely, that he has a meritorious [claim or defense], and that
the opposing party would not be unfairly prejudiced by having the judgment set aside.” Nat’l
Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Gray, 1 F.3d 262, 264 (4th Cir. 1993) (quotation omitted). If a party
meets these threshold conditions, “he must satisfy one of the six enumerated grounds for relief
under Rule 60(b).” Id. Those grounds for relief are
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).
B. Analysis
As noted above, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the case and no trial was
held. Where Rule 59 requires that a trial be conducted before a party may move for a new trial,
plaintiff’s motion fails.
As for plaintiff’s motion under Rule 60(b), one “threshold condition for granting the relief
is that the movant demonstrate that granting that relief will not in the end have been a futile gesture,
by showing that she has a meritorious defense or claim.” Boyd v. Bulala, 905 F.2d 764, 769 (4th
Cir. 1990). “A meritorious defense [or claim] requires a proffer of evidence which would permit
a finding for the [moving] party.” Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc. v. Fodor Contracting Corp.,
843 F.2d 808, 812 (4th Cir. 1988); United States v. Moradi, 673 F.2d 725, 727 (4th Cir. 1982).
Plaintiff fails to make this threshold showing. Plaintiff has offered no evidence in support
of her motion, which “simply restates the procedural posture of this matter and cites to numerous
inapplicable . . . federal statutes.” Arroyo v. Merriweather, No. 3:20-CV-506, 2021 WL 3081061
at *2 (W.D.N.C. Jul. 21, 2021), aff’d No. 21-1669, 2021 WL 5492822 (4th Cir. Nov. 23, 2021).
In addition, plaintiff does not specify any of the six enumerated grounds for relief. The court has
already considered all the arguments raised in her motion in its order entered October 7, 2022.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs motion for new trial and to amend the judgment (DE
50) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 4th day of April, 2023.
( Apie W. FLANASAN
nited States District Judge