Taylor v. Morel et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARLES EDWARD TAYLOR 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-291
HARRY J. MOREL, ET AL. 	SECTION “R” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Charles Edward Taylor, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Judge Joel T.
Chaisson, Harry J. Morel, Jr., Kurt F. Sims, Greg Champagne, and Detective
Atkins. 1 	Plaintiff’s complaint is based on alleged misconduct related to his
1991 conviction for distribution of cocaine in the 29th Judicial District Court
for the State of Louisiana.
On May 27, 2025, Magistrate Judge Eva J. Dossier issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the case be dismissed with
prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 2 Plaintiff timely filed
1 	R. Doc. 5.
2 	R. Doc. 23.
Case 2:25-cv-00291-SSV Document 37 Filed 12/19/25 Page 1 of 5

2
an objection 3 and a supplemental declaration in opposition to the R&R.4 In
his objection, plaintiff restated his assertions that: (1) equitable tolling is
justified; and (2) “actual innocence” and “miscarriage of justice” warrant
relief. 5 Plaintiff additionally asserted that it was “erroneous” to conclude that
he failed to timely utilize available judicial remedies. 6 	In his supplemental
declaration, plaintiff, for the first time, alleged that he did not learn of
“critical information” regarding his claim until 2016.7 On July 31, 2025, this
Court overruled plaintiff’s objections and adopted the R&R as its opinion,
dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. 8 	Judgment was entered on
August 1, 2025. 9 Plaintiff then filed a 59(e) motion, 10 which this Court denied
on October 7, 2025. 11
Plaintiff 	has 	since 	filed 	three 	motions: 	one 	seeking 	service 	on
defendants; 12 one seeking leave to file an amended complaint; 13 and one
3 	R. Doc. 27.
4 	R. Doc. 26.
5 	R. Doc. 27.
6 	Id.
7 	R. Doc. 26.
8 	R. Doc. 28.
9 	R. Doc. 29.
10 	R. Doc. 30.
11 	R. Doc. 31.
12 	R. Doc. 34.
13 	R. Doc. 35.
Case 2:25-cv-00291-SSV Document 37 Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 5

3
seeking relief from judgment under Rule 60. 14 The Court considers plaintiff’s
motions below.
II. LAW AND DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides six grounds for which a
district court may grant relief from a final judgment or order:
(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 judgement 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.
The party seeking relief under Rule 60(b) bears the burden of establishing
the prerequisites for relief, and the district court enjoys broad discretion in
assessing whether any of the grounds in 60(b) are satisfied. 	D.R.T.G.
Builders, L.L.C. v. Occupational Safety & Health Rev. Comm’n, 26 F.4th
306, 312 (5th Cir. 2022).
Relief under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy, which will be
granted 	only 	if 	the 	moving 	party 	demonstrates 	“unusual 	or 	unique
14 	R. Doc. 36.
Case 2:25-cv-00291-SSV Document 37 Filed 12/19/25 Page 3 of 5

4
circumstances justifying such relief.” 	Pryor v. U.S. Postal Serv., 769 F.2d
281, 286 (5th Cir. 1985). 	Courts may construe the Rule “in order to do
substantial justice” and must balance “the sanctity of final judgments and the
‘incessant command of the court’s conscience that justice be done in light of
all the facts.’” Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1007 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting
Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984)). Rule 60(b)
does not create “an opportunity to rehash prior arguments,” Stewart v.
Leonard, 695 F. App’x 800, 801 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam), or allow
litigants to raise new arguments that could and should have been brought
before the challenged ruling, Dial One of the Mid-S., Inc. v. BellSouth
Telecomms., Inc., 401 F.3d 603, 607 (5th Cir. 2005).
Here, plaintiff moves for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Rule 60(b)(6) is a
“catchall” provision that “provides only grounds for relief not already
covered” by (b)(1)-(5). 	BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, 605 U.S. 204, 211
(2025). 	Rule 60(b)(6) relief is therefore available only when relief under
60(b)(1)-(5) is inapplicable. 	Id. 	Moreover, relief under this Rule “should
only be applied in ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” 	Id. 	at 212 (quoting
Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864 (1988)).
Plaintiff provides no “extraordinary circumstances” warranting relief. 	In
plaintiff’s motion, he re-asserts objections to this Court’s order dismissing
Case 2:25-cv-00291-SSV Document 37 Filed 12/19/25 Page 4 of 5

5
his complaint, objections that he has already presented to this Court. These
previously made objections are not proper grounds for Rule 60(b) relief. See
Stewart, 695 F. App’x at 801. 	The Court therefore must deny plaintiff’s
motion for relief from final judgment.
Because the Court denies plaintiff’s 60(b) motion, it must also deny
plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend and plaintiff’s motion for service. 	See
BLOM Bank SAL, 605 U.S. at 210 (explaining that “a party seeking to reopen
his case and replead must first satisfy Rule 60(b) on its own terms and obtain
Rule 60(b) relief before Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard can
apply”); cf. Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 604 U.S. 305, 310-11
(2025) (explaining that a motion to vacate under Rule 60(b) “must be
addressed before any subsequent jurisdiction questions [are] considered”).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s 60(b) motion,
his motion for leave to amend, and his motion for service.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of December, 2025.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19th
Case 2:25-cv-00291-SSV Document 37 Filed 12/19/25 Page 5 of 5