The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Rico Isaih Hairston, Case No. 3:19-cv-1042
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Pettiway, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Rico Isaih Hairston has filed a second motion seeking relief from judgment and to
reopen this case. (Doc. No. 27). Defendants oppose Hairston’s motion. (Doc No. 28). Hairston
filed a brief in reply. (Doc. No. 29).
On September 22, 2020, I granted the motion of Defendants Pettiway and Bias to vacate the
order granting permission to Hairston, who is pro se, to proceed with this case without prepaying the
filing fee. (Doc. No. 18). I ordered Hairston to pay the full filing fee within 30 days of the date of
the entry of my Memorandum Opinion and Order and warned him this case would be dismissed
without prejudice for want of prosecution if he did not. (Id.). Hairston did not pay the filing fee
within that deadline and I subsequently entered an order dismissing the case. (Doc. No. 21).
On April 27, 2021, approximately six months after the expiration of the deadline I set,
Hairston filed a motion for leave to reopen the case. (Doc. No. 22). He asserted he had paid the
filing fee in full and sought to proceed with his claims. The Clerk of Court’s Office had no record of
Hairston paying the full filing fee, nor did Hairston ever seek an extension of the deadline I set in
September 2020. Further, Hairston offered no explanation why he did not pay the fee within the
required time period, much less good cause for his failure to comply with my September 22, 2020
order. On that basis, I denied Hairston’s motion for leave to reopen this case. (Doc. No. 26).
Hairston again asserts he has paid the filing fee in full. He filed an inmate account statement
from the Ohio State Penitentiary, where he currently is incarcerated, which states he does not owe
any money to this Court. (Doc. No. 27-1). While I have no knowledge of the procedures the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction uses to maintain or update the information contained
in the type of statement Hairston has filed, I have confirmed with the Clerk of Court that no funds
have been transferred or submitted to this Court to satisfy Hairston’s outstanding balance for his
filing fee.
Further, as I previously stated, Hairston’s failure to pay the filing fee was not the only reason
for the dismissal of this case. Hairston did not comply with my September 22, 2020 order, seek an
extension of the deadline I set in that order, or offer good cause for his failure to comply. While he
now contends his failure to comply was a matter of excusable neglect because he is not an attorney,
(Doc. No. 27 at 1), pro se plaintiffs still must “follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and basic
procedural obligations.” Allen v. Stark State Coll., Case No. 5:17-cv-2706, 2019 WL 3387772, at *7
(N.D. Ohio July 26, 2019) (citing Fields v. Cnty. of Lapeer, 238 F.3d 420, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2000)
(unpublished table decision)). See also Bell v. Wilson Cnty. Jail, No. 3:18-CV-00873, 2019 WL 1958364,
at *4 (M.D. Tenn. May 2, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:18-CV-00873, 2019 WL
2501564 (M.D. Tenn. June 17, 2019) (“As the Sixth Circuit has recognized, pro se plaintiffs
must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”) (citing Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th
Cir. 1991); Brock v. Hendershott, 840 F.2d 339, 343 (6th Cir. 1988); and Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591,
594 (6th Cir. 1989)).
Rule 60(b) states “the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding 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).
Hairston fails to establish that his noncompliance with my earlier order was the result of
excusable neglect, or any other reason described in Rule 60(b). Therefore, I deny his motion for
relief from judgment and to reopen his case. (Doc. No. 27).
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge