Banks v. Hooper ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BRIAN K. BANKS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 21-1788 TIM HOOPER, WARDEN SECTION “B”(4) ORDER Considering pro se petitioner Brian Banks’ motion to set aside judgment (Rec. Doc. 50), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Petitioner brings this motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), which provides that “On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party of its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding . . . [when] the judgment is void[.]” See Rec. Doc. 50 at 1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). Whereas pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than lawyers, pro se litigants are not “exempt . . . from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” See NCO Fin. Sys., Inc. v. Harper-Horsley, No. CIV.A. 07-4247, 2008 WL 2277843, at *3 (E.D. La. May 29, 2008) (internal quotations omitted) (first citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); and then quoting Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981)). Rule 60 applies to final judgments, and here a final judgment on petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus has not been entered. Petitioner’s pro se status does not relieve him from complying with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law, and as such, this motion to set aside judgment where there is no final judgment must be DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana this 4th day of August, 2023 ___________________________________ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE