UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS RAMIRO CANALES, § § Plaintiff, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-77 § DEMETRIA EDISON, et al., § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Ramiro Canales, an inmate confined at the Mark Stiles Unit, with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several Defendants Demetria Edison, Daniel J. Quesenberry, Duyean Bui, Annuncia Wright and Michelle Spruell- Smith. Pending before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Petitioner on March 21, 2023 (#42). The Motion for Reconsideration was filed more than 28 days after entry of the final judgment. As such, the pending motion should be construed as a Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). "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 (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A careful review of the motion reveals Plaintiff is merely asking this court to reconsider its prior decision. Plaintiff is using this motion, in effect, to seek a second round of appeals from the dismissal of this civil action. A Rule 60 motion, however, "is not to be used as a substitute for appeal. . . ." Diaz v. Stephens, 731 F.3d 370, 377 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981)). Plaintiff has failed to present any "extraordinary circumstances" or demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief from Judgment (#126) is DENIED. 2