govinfo:USCOURTS-tnwd-1_25-cv-01147-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
 EASTERN DIVISION 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
SHAUN POOLE, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. No. 1:25-cv-01147-JDB-jay 
 
NEIL THOMPSON, 
JOSH FREY, and 
MICHAEL KING, 
 
Defendants. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 
 _____________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff, Shaun Poole, to alter or amend judgment, or in 
the alternative, for reconsideration. (Docket Entry ( “D.E.”) 15.) On April 14, 2026, the Court 
adopted the United State s Magistrate Judge’s r eport and r ecommendation that, inter alia , this 
matter be dismissed and that Poole ’s preliminary injunction be denied as moot. (D.E. 13.) 
Judgment was entered on the same day. (D.E. 14.) On April 24, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant 
motion. (D.E. 15.) In the motion, he argues that the Court improperly evaluated hi s claims 
individually instead of considering them together , improperly resolved factual issues by 
substituting its own interpretation of the facts, failed to conclude that the facts he described created 
a coercive environment, and did not meaningfully address certain defendants or claims. (See id.) 
While Poole did not explicitly invoke Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 
the Court construes his motion as being brought under this Rule. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 
60(b) permits “a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under 
a limited set of circumstances.” Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). Under Rule PageID
<pageID>
2 
60(b)(1), a party may seek relief based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” 
Rules 60(b)(2) through (b)(5) supply other grounds for reopening a judgment. Finally, Rule 
60(b)(6) provides a catchall for “any other reason that justifies relief.” This last option is available 
only when Rules 60(b)(1) through (b)(5) are inapplicable. See Liljeberg v. Health Serv s. 
Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 n.11 (1988). Even then, “extraordinary circumstances” must 
justify reopening. Id. (citation omitted). That is, Rule 60(b)(6), “contemplates situations where 
something more . . . is present than those situations contemplated by the other clauses in the rule. 
The something more, . . . must include unusual and extreme situations where principles of equity 
mandate relief.” Tanner v. Yukins , 776 F.3d 434, 443 (6th Cir. 2015) (emphasis in original) 
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 
Here, Plaintiff has not shown “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” under 
Rule 60(b)(1), nor has he shown extraordinary reasons under Rule 60(b)(6). Instead, he maintains 
that this Court did not analyze his claims correctly. Because Poole has failed to meet the standards 
set out in Rule 60(b), his motion for relief from judgment (D.E. 15) is DENIED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of May 2026. 
 s/ J. DANIEL BREEN 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PageID
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight