JAMES D. TODD, District Judge.
The pro se prisoner Plaintiff, Christopher J. Gross, filed this action pursuant to 42U.S.C. § 1983 on February 27, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) On December 10, 2013, the Court partially dismissed the complaint and ordered that process be served on Defendants Tasma Graham-Doaks and Felicia Jones. (ECF No. 5.) An initial scheduling order was entered on February 26, 2014. (ECF No. 14.)
Defendants filed a motion to compel discovery on August 6, 2014, asserting that Plaintiff had been served with discovery requests on June 14, 2014, but had not provided any answers to those requests. (ECF No. 16.) When Plaintiff filed no response to the motion, U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward G. Bryant issued an order compelling discovery on January Defendants' discovery requests and warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the action. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff did not comply with the order compelling discovery, and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) on January 29, 2015. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff again did not respond, and the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss on March 10, 2015 (ECF No. 25); judgment was entered on March 11, 2015 (ECF No. 26). On November 23, 2015, more than eight months later, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). (ECF No. 29.) He contends that his lack of cooperation and communication in this case was the result of excusable neglect.
Under Rule 60(b) "the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding" due to "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." "Relief under Rule 60(b) is circumscribed by public policy favoring finality of judgments and termination of litigation." Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Trs. of UMWA Combined Benefit Fund, 249 F.3d 519, 524 (6th Cir. 2001). For that reason, "the party seeking relief under Rule 60(b) bears the burden of establishing the grounds for such relief by clear and convincing evidence." Sataym Computer Servs., Ltd. v. Venture Global Eng'g, LLC, 323 F. App'x 421, 427 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Info-Hold, Inc. v. Sound Merch., Inc., 538 F.3d 448, 454 (6th Cir. 2008)). A motion specifically based on subsection (b)(1) of Rule 60 is
Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 226 F.3d 483, 490 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting Yapp v. Excel Corp., 186 F.3d 1222, 1231 (10th Cir. 1999)).
Plaintiff asserts that in March 2014 he hired an attorney, Courtney Teasley, to represent him in this matter. The website of the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility ("TBPR") shows that Ms. Teasley is licensed to practice in Tennessee.
Plaintiff further explains that he was again incarcerated beginning in October 2014.
Plaintiff asserts that it is not his fault that he "chose poor counsel in this matter that could not practice law within the courts [sic] district."
In determining whether there has been excusable neglect, the Court must take the performance of the client's attorney into account. United States v. Reyes, 307 F.3d 451, 456 (6th Cir. 2002). The rule can be harsh, but "clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys." Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 396-97 (1993).
Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34 (1962); see also Jackson v. Chandler, 463 F. App'x 511, 513 (6th Cir. 2012). Thus, any action and/or inaction by Ms. Teasley that may have contributed to Plaintiff's failure to respond to Defendants' discovery requests cannot be considered excusable neglect.
Plaintiff's incarceration and lack of access to a law library also do not constitute excusable neglect justifying relief from the judgment. Lack of access to a law library did not prevent either Plaintiff himself or Ms. Teasley from responding to Defendants' discovery requests or communicating with Defendants' counsel during the four months between the time he was served with the discovery in June 2014 and his incarceration in October 2014. Plaintiff simply never bothered to communicate with Defendants' counsel or the Court, even after Defendants' motion to compel discovery was filed in August 2014, two months prior to his incarceration.
Furthermore, even after he was incarcerated, lack of access to a law library did not prevent Plaintiff from contacting Defendants' counsel and the Court. The Magistrate Judge did not grant the Defendants' motion to compel until January 2, 2015. At any time prior to that ruling, and even within the two-week period he was given to comply with the Magistrate Judge's order, Plaintiff could have sought an extension of time and explained his situation without having to use a law library. Plaintiff also could have attempted to answer the discovery requests to the best of his ability, which would not have required a law library.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that his failure to provide discovery, respond to the Defendants' motions, and comply with the Magistrate Judge's order was the result of excusable neglect. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief from the judgment, and his motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) is DENIED.