Pitchford v. Turbitt

Filing 46

ORDER denying 40 Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order; denying 41 Plaintiff's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. Signed by Judge G. Thomas Eisele on 9/8/2010. (jct)

Pitchford v. Turbitt Doc. 46 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION FREDERICK L. PITCHFORD v. No. 3:06-CV-00044 GTE PLAINTIFF DANIEL MADDEN TURBITT, UNITED STATES MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ORDE R DEFENDANTS Before the Court is a second Petition to Vacate Order filed by Plaintiff Frederick L. Pitchford, pro se.1 Pitchford has also requested an evidentiary hearing. Defendant Daniel Madden Turbitt has filed responses to both motions. Pitchford requests that this Court vacate an Order entered December 31, 2002, by Defendant Turbitt in his role as an Administrative Law Judge. For the reasons well stated in Defendant's response, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 provides no authority to vacate Judge Turbitt's Order. The Court further concludes that Pitchford's motion, filed almost 8 years following Judge Turbitt's decision, is untimely and completely without merit. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order (Docket No. 40) and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Docket No. 41) be, and they are hereby, DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of September, 2010. _/s/Garnett Thomas Eisele___________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The Court previously denied Pitchford's petition arguing that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint. See Order filed October 13, 2006, Docket No. 32. 1 Dockets.Justia.com

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?