while they may be newly discovered, could not change the outcome of the case. That evidence merely supports his factual contentions, which the Court, for the purposes of resolving the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, accepted as true. The Court notes at the outset that Mr. Epps’s claim for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) fails because “controlling cases have held that if the reasons offered for relief from judgment can be considered in one or more specific clauses of Rule 60(b), such reasons will not justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6).” United States v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 247 F.3d 370, 391-92 (2d Cir.2001) (citing Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988)); see also Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 372-73 (D.C.Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Epps argues that the records that have
holding that relief under rule 60b6 is not available unless the other clauses 1 through 5 are inapplicable holding that claims for equitable relief under  502a3 are only available when a plaintiff has no other relief under erisa holding that palpable error relief is not available unless three conditions are present 1 holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea holding that rule 60b6 may be used to grant relief in case of extreme and undue hardship