BOYKINS v. WARDEN et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
MAURICE BOYKINS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:23-cv-00046-JPH-MJD
)
FRANK VANIHEL Warden, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER ADDRESSING MOTIONS CHALLENGING FINAL JUDGMENT
In 	this 	Order, 	the 	Court 	addresses 	Plaintiff 	Maurice 	Boykins's 	post-
judgment motions challenging this Court's grant of summary judgment in favor
of Defendants. See dkts.176, 177, 180. The Court also will rule in this Order on
Mr. Boykins's "Motion to Address Unconstitutional Deduction of Funds by
Courts," dkt. 175, and his "Submission to Clerk," docketed as a "Motion for Court
Assistance," dkt. 192. By separate orders the Court will address Defendants' bill
of costs and Mr. Boykins's response to it, dkts. 163, 178, and Mr. Boykins's
filings related to the appeal he has filed in this matter, dkts. 193, 194, 197.
I. Background
Mr. Boykins is an inmate from Virginia serving his sentence through the
Indiana Department of Correction ("IDOC"). He was incarcerated at Wabash
Valley Correctional Facility when the case began, was transferred to New Castle
Correctional Facility while the case was proceeding, and was transferred to
Pendleton Correctional Facility shortly after final judgment was entered.
Case 2:23-cv-00046-JPH-MJD Document 202 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Mr. Boykins alleged in this lawsuit that Defendants Wabash Valley ex-
Warden 	Frank 	Vanihel 	and 	IDOC 	Ombudsman 	Charlene 	Burkett 	were
disregarding his requests to put him in protective custody at Wabash Valley.
Specifically, Mr. Boykins claimed that he was under threats from various gang
members, though there were no allegations that he had ever been assaulted. As
screened by the Court, this case was proceeding on Eighth Amendment claims
for damages against Ombudsman Burkett and for injunctive relief only against
Warden Vanihel. Dkt. 20 at 5-6.
On February 24, 2025, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of
Warden Vanihel and Ombudsman Charlene Burkett. Dkt. 161. As to Warden
Vanihel, it was undisputed by Mr. Boykins, in his own cross-motion for partial
summary judgment, that he was no longer entitled to pursue an injunctive relief
claim against him—which was the only claim proceeding against him—because
Mr. Boykins had been moved to New Castle and such a claim was moot. Id. at
12-13.
As to Ombudsman Burkett, the Court concluded she was entitled to
qualified immunity. Id. at 9-12. The Court noted that it had received no response
to Defendants' summary judgment motion and so Mr. Boykins had provided no
authority to suggest Ombudsman Burkett should not be entitled to qualified
immunity. 	Id. 	at 	11. 	The 	Court 	went 	on 	to 	explain 	that 	"[m]oreover, 	the
designated evidence shows that Ombudsman Burkett lacked the authority and
ability 	to 	take 	any 	direct 	or 	mandatory 	action 	to 	remedy 	[Mr. 	Boykins's]
situation." Id.
Case 2:23-cv-00046-JPH-MJD Document 202 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
On March 13, the Court received a "Letter to Clerk" from Mr. Boykins,
signed on March 11. Dkt. 166. In it, Mr. Boykins asserted that he had just
learned of the grant of summary judgment while on Lexis-Nexis, and that he had
in fact mailed a response to Defendants' summary judgment motion and had
documentation to prove that he did. None of this documentation was attached
to the letter. This letter did not request any relief, but said that "there are some
corrupt people in yall courtroom . . . ." Id.
On July 2, the Court received Mr. Boykins's "Motion for Reconsideration,"
which was signed on July 1. Dkt. 176. It also asserted that he had in fact
attempted to send a response to Defendants' summary judgment motion, and
also had attempted to send several post-judgment motions that also were not
filed. There were no attachments to this filing.
On July 8, the Court received a "Motion to Correct Error" from Mr.
Boykins. Dkt. 177. However, this document is in fact the March 13 "Letter to
Clerk," except that it also has "Motion to Correct Error" written under "Letter to
Clerk." Id.
On July 10, the Court received documents from Mr. Boykins that were
docketed as a "Motion for Court Assistance." Dkt. 180. The actual title Mr.
Boykins used was, "Motion to have all missing motions place on docket readdress
and investigated and whatever appropriate actions courts deem necessary" and
it was signed July 8. Id. There are a number of attachments to this filing. One of
them appears to be a New Castle law library mail request form dated October 24,
2024. It shows Mr. Boykins requesting to mail out four different items on this
Case 2:23-cv-00046-JPH-MJD Document 202 Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
date, one of which was listed as "Plaintiff Motion in Opposition to Defendants
Motion for Cross Summary Judgment" in this case. Dkt. 180-1 at 6. Mr. Boykins
has also attached what he asserts is the summary judgment response brief, with
attachments, that he sent to the Court on that date. Id. at 15-57.
On November 7, Mr. Boykins filed a notice of appeal from the Court's
summary judgment ruling. Dkt. 195.
II. Discussion
Mr. Boykins's filings at dkts. 176, 177, and 180 collectively are best
construed as a motion or motions for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b), given that they were filed more than 28 days after final judgment was
entered. 	See Banks v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 750 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2014)
("When a motion is filed more than 28 days after the entry of judgment, whether
the movant calls it a Rule 59(e) motion or a Rule 60(b) motion, we treat it as a
Rule 60(b) motion."). A Court may grant relief from judgment for any of the six
listed 	reasons, 	including 	"(1) 	mistake, 	inadvertence, 	surprise, 	or 	excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . . ; (3) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Relief under Rule 60(b) is an "extraordinary remedy . . .
granted only in exceptional circumstances." Davis v. Moroney, 857 F.3d 748, 751
(7th Cir. 2017).
"In addition to a particular ground for relief under Rule 60(b), a movant
must demonstrate a meritorious claim or defense." Cade Roney v. Indianapolis
Power & Light Co., 317 F.R.D. 79, 83 (S.D. Ind. 2016) (citing Breuer Electric Mfg.
Case 2:23-cv-00046-JPH-MJD Document 202 Filed 11/24/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Co. Toronado Systems of America, Inc., 687 F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1982)). "This
is so because Courts considering motions for relief from judgment must be
cognizant of the necessity of balancing the judicial system's interest in reaching
substantively correct results against its interest in upholding the validity and
finality of judgments." Id. (citing Dickman v. Kramer, 980 F.2d 733 (7th Cir.
1992)).
The Court will assume that Mr. Boykins did in fact attempt to timely mail
a summary judgment response, and that the fact the Court did not receive it was
the result of "inadvertence" or "excusable neglect." The Court has reviewed the
response, however, and concluded that it fails to provide a basis for second-
guessing the summary judgment order. As to Warden Vanihel, Mr. Boykins has
not attempted to argue that he was not entitled to summary judgment based on
the mootness of the injunctive relief claim.
Mr. Boykins does contend that his summary judgment response would
have caused a different result as to Ombudsman Burkett. The Court disagrees.
As noted in the summary judgment order, when the qualified immunity defense
is raised, it is a plaintiff's burden to defeat it. Dkt. 161 at 11 (citing Smith v.
Finkley, 10 F.4th 725, 737 (7th Cir. 2021)). Even in Mr. Boykins's summary
judgment response brief that he allegedly tried to send to the Court, he provides
no relevant authority for the proposition that an ombudsman for a correctional
department, who is not actually employed by the department and has no
authority to directly supervise correctional employees and no authority to direct
whether an inmate is placed in protective custody, can be held liable under 42
Case 2:23-cv-00046-JPH-MJD Document 202 Filed 11/24/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to change the inmate's placement. The only cases he
cites deal with alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment: Pearson v. Callahan,
555 U.S. 223 (2009) (searches), and Frazell v. Flanigan, 102 F.3d 877 (7th Cir.
1996) (excessive force). They do not provide any basis for defeating Ombudsman
Burkett's qualified immunity defense. Additionally, Mr. Boykins has not rebutted
the Court's description of the nature of Ombudsman Burkett's position and the
extent of her authority. None of the evidence or arguments made in Mr. Boykins's
brief contradict the conclusion that she lacked the ability to take direct action to
change his housing situation at Wabash Valley.
In sum, Mr. Boykins's motions to reconsider or vacate judgment do not
demonstrate that he would have had a successful response to Defendants'
summary judgment motion. Mr. Boykins's motions are DENIED. Dkts. [176],
[177], [180].
III. Conclusion
In addition to denial of the above motions, the Court also summarily
DENIES 	the 	"Motion 	to 	Address 	Unconstitutional 	Deduction 	of 	Funds 	by
Courts." Dkt. [175]. Mr. Boykins filed the identical motion in several cases. The
reasoning behind denial of the motion may be found in Boykins v. Belcher et al.,
No. 1:25-cv-00056-RLY-MJD, dkt. 22.
Finally, the Court summarily DENIES the "Motion for Court Assistance" at
dkt. [192], which appears to seek identifying information about Court personnel.
Last, Mr. Boykins is advised that he is obligated to ensure that every filing
he presents to the Court is made for a proper purpose and advances nonfrivolous
Case 2:23-cv-00046-JPH-MJD Document 202 Filed 11/24/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
arguments. 	Future filings that do not meet this standard may result in the
imposition of sanctions, such as monetary fines, dismissal of cases, and a bar
against filing papers in this Court.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
All ECF-registered counsel of record via email
MAURICE BOYKINS
285506
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Date: 11/24/2025
Case 2:23-cv-00046-JPH-MJD Document 202 Filed 11/24/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>