Evans v. Baytown Police Dept, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20562
Conference Calendar
LEONARD THOMAS EVANS, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE CITY OF BAYTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT;
SHAFFER, Chief of Police; SARGEANT BUCKLEY;
RON MOSER, Investigator; R. MERLIN, Investigator;
D. LOPEZ, Investigator,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-94-CV-1699
--------------------
August 23, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leonard Thomas Evans, Sr., (TDCJ # 683153) appeals the
district court’s denial of his “subsequent application for
petition of section 1983, 42 U.S.C., pursuant to discovery of new
evidence.” Based on what he alleged was newly discovered
evidence, Evans sought to “re-open” the 1997 judgment dismissing
his civil rights complaint.
Insofar as Evans sought relief under Fed. R. Civ. P.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-20562
-2-
60(b)(2), which provides for relief from a judgment based on
newly discovered evidence, the motion was not timely. See
Transit Casualty Co. v. Security Trust Co., 441 F.2d 788, 790-91
(5th Cir. 1971). Insofar as he sought relief under Rule
60(b)(6), which provides for relief for “any other reason
justifying relief from the operation of the judgment[,]” Evans
has demonstrated no extraordinary circumstances warranting relief
from the judgment. See Batts v. Tow-Motor Forklift Co., 66 F.3d
743, 747 (5th Cir. 1995). Evans’s motion to file a supplemental
reply brief is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --