Max-George v. Collier et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CECIL MAX-GEORGE, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:22-CV-101
§
BRYAN COLLIER, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Cecil Max-George, an inmate confined at the Polunsky Unit, proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, brought the above-styled lawsuit. Plaintiff’s lawsuit was dismissed for
want of prosecution based on plaintiff’s failure to advise the court of his ability to proceed
following a stay in the proceedings.
Plaintiff has filed another motion to stay proceedings (#29). Plaintiff states he was
transferred to another unit for emergency medical reasons and is unable to prosecute his lawsuit
due to his “current medical and mental health instability.” Plaintiff requests a stay of his lawsuit
until his is able to litigate the action once again. Plaintiff’s motion, liberally interpreted, is
construed as a motion for relief from judgment or order under Rule 60.
Rule 60, FED. R. CIV. P., provides in pertinent part:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On
motion and just terms, 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 ..., 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.
After careful consideration of the circumstances in this case, the court is of the opinion that
plaintiff’s motion warrants relief from the judgment and plaintiff should be provided an additional
opportunity to prosecute his lawsuit. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion should be granted, and the
case should be reinstated on the court’s active docket.
Case 9:22-cv-00101-MAC-CLS Document 30 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s motion for relief from the judgment should be
granted, and the case should be reinstated on the court’s active docket. It is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (#29) is GRANTED. The
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reinstate the above-styled action on the court’s active docket.
It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days from the date set forth below and
each thirty (30) days thereafter, file a notice advising the court whether or not he remains able to
proceed and either request to proceed with this action or set forth the reasons for his continued
inability to proceed. Failure by the plaintiff to file an advisory in compliance with this order may
result in the dismissal of this action pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) without further notice.
2
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 27th day of February, 2026.
Case 9:22-cv-00101-MAC-CLS Document 30 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>