Pickard v. Officer Cefalu

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LATOYA PICKARD §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-40
§
OFFICER CEFALU, §
§
Defendant. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Latoya Pickard, an inmate at the Murray Unit of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brought the above-styled lawsuit. The lawsuit was dismissed for want of prosecution on April 18,
2023. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment (#13).
Analysis
Plaintiff requests relief from the judgment, asserting that she had been transferred and her
mail was not being forwarded to her.
Rule 60(b), FED. R. CIV. P., provides in pertinent part:
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.
Plaintiff asserts that she had been transferred to five different units during her incarceration
and her mail was not being forwarded to her. A review of the docket, however, reveals plaintiff
had failed to update the court with any of her address changes. Eastern District of Texas Local
Rule CV-11(d) requires pro se litigants such as plaintiff to provide the court with a physical
address and keep the clerk advised in writing of a current address. Thus, plaintiff’s motion fails
to set forth a meritorious ground warranting relief from the judgment.
Case 9:23-cv-00040-MAC-CLS Document 14 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Further, plaintiff’s motion is untimely. The judgment in this action was entered on April
18, 2023. Plaintiff, however, did not file her motion until more than two years later on June 30,
2025. Pursuant to Rule 60(c), a motion for relief based on excusable neglect must be made no
more than a year after the entry of the judgment. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for relief should
be denied.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment lacks merit and
should be denied. It is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (#13) is DENIED.
2
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 2nd day of March, 2026.
Case 9:23-cv-00040-MAC-CLS Document 14 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>