Gerald Pleas v. Manatee County , 536 F. App'x 1005 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-14714 Date Filed: 10/08/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 12-14714
Non-Argument Calendar
_______________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cv-02059-JSM-TGW
GERALD PLEAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MANATEE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_______________________
(October 8, 2013)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Pleas seeks review of the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b)
motion for relief from judgment. Mr. Pleas’ appeal brief does not explain how the
Case: 12-14714 Date Filed: 10/08/2013 Page: 2 of 3
district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for relief from judgment,
and because we find no such abuse of discretion, we affirm.
On September 20, 2007, a man dressed as a UPS delivery person forced his
way into the home of Vickie Lynn Carpenter and attempted to rape her. After
hearing a knock on the door, the perpetrator fled Ms. Carpenter’s home. Mr. Pleas
was detained and arrested after Ms. Carpenter picked him out of a photographic
line-up and a separate witness placed Mr. Pleas in the area shortly before the
incident. Mr. Pleas was charged with attempted sexual battery and burglary with a
firearm. Following a verdict of not guilty, Mr. Pleas brought suit against
Defendants Manatee County, Florida, Sheriff Brad Steube, Detective Sam Levita,
and Deputy Jamie Wilder, claiming false arrest, the intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and harassment.
On May 31, 2012, the district court dismissed Mr. Pleas’ Second Amended
Complaint with prejudice. After Mr. Pleas’ motion for reconsideration was denied
by the district court on August 4, 2012, Mr. Pleas filed a Motion for Relief from
Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Four
days later, the district court denied the motion. Mr. Pleas then filed this timely
appeal of the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion.
The standard of review for a denial of a motion for relief from judgment is
whether the district court abused its discretion. Gulf Coast Fans, Inc. v. Midwest
2
Case: 12-14714 Date Filed: 10/08/2013 Page: 3 of 3
Elecs. Imps., Inc., 740 F.2d 1499, 1510 (11th Cir. 1984). The denial of a Rule
60(b) motion is, in itself, a final appealable order. See id. at 1507. Although Mr.
Pleas’ appeal brief attempts to raise arguments relating to the dismissal of his
Second Amended Complaint, our review is restricted to those issues timely raised
by Mr. Pleas’ present appeal, that is, review of the district court’s denial of his
Rule 60(b) motion. See id.In his motion for relief from judgment Mr. Pleas merely transcribed Rules
60(b), 60(c)(1), and 61 without providing any factual support or legal analysis to
support the motion. At no point in his motion did Mr. Pleas attempt to argue that
the district court improperly dismissed his Second Amended Complaint. Instead,
Mr. Pleas states in a conclusory manner that “the facts of this case establishes [sic]
a cause of action,” and “[i]t is the plaintiffs [sic] view that the previous complaint
for damages should be allowed to be filed in the interest of justice.” Motion for
Relief from Judgment, D.E. 46 at 2. In his brief on appeal, Mr. Pleas fails to even
raise the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his
motion for relief from judgment. Mr. Pleas, therefore, failed to demonstrate a
justification so compelling that the district court was required to vacate its order.
Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2006). As a result, we find that the
district court properly denied Mr. Pleas’ Rule 60(b) motion.
AFFIRMED.
3