Wright v. State of Tennessee et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DANIELLE LYNETTE WRIGHT,
#579080,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:24-cv-00199
ORDER
Danielle Wright brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 1). The Court
dismissed Wright’s second amended complaint and entered final judgment. (Doc. Nos. 25, 26).
Wright then filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment, which is now before the Court. (Doc. No. 27)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60).
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).
Case 3:24-cv-00199 Document 28 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>

2
“As a prerequisite to relief under Rule 60(b), a party must establish that the facts of its case
are within one of the enumerated reasons contained in Rule 60(b) that warrant relief from
judgment.” Johnson v. Unknown Dellatifa, 357 F.3d 539, 543 (6th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks
and citation omitted).
Here, Wright requests “relief via express ground on the actual neglect, fraud, misconduct,
and the Racketeering Influence Corrupt Organization activities of embezzlement and extortion
performed by each defendant respectively as documented in the previous court record.”1
(Doc. No. 27). This argument does not place Wright’s case within any of the enumerated
provisions of Rule 60(b). Nor has Wright demonstrated any “extraordinary circumstances” that
would justify relief under the catch-all provision of Rule 60(b)(6). BLOM Bank SAL v.
Honickman, 605 U.S. 204, 213 (2025).
Accordingly, Wright’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. No. 27) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 The second amended complaint did not raise any claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act. (See generally Doc. No. 19).
Case 3:24-cv-00199 Document 28 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>