Myron Hubbard v. Missouri Department of Mental, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Duane Benton and Bobby E. Shepherd, All pending motions are denied as moot. (UNPUBLISHED) [4461747] [16-1507]--[Edited 10/24/2016 by YML]***TEXT ADDED***

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1507
___________________________
Myron Hubbard
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Missouri Department of Mental Health; St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Center; Metropolitan St. Louis Psychiatric Center
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: October 20, 2016
Filed: October 24, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and, SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Myron Hubbard appeals the dismissal of his Title VI action.
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Appellate Case: 16-1507

Page: 1

Having

Date Filed: 10/24/2016 Entry ID: 4461747

Following de novo review, this court finds the district court1 properly
concluded Hubbard’s claims are barred by res judicata and that Hubbard was not
entitled to an equitable exception to the doctrine. See Laase v. Cty. of Isanti, 638
F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of dismissal based on res judicata);
Magee v. Hamline Univ., 775 F.3d 1057, 1059 (8th Cir. 2015) (listing res judicata
factors); Walker v. Trinity Marine Products, Inc., 721 F.3d 542, 545 (8th Cir. 2013)
(plaintiff invoking equitable estoppel must show she has changed position to her
detriment in reasonable reliance on another’s misleading representation). Nor was
Hubbard entitled to relief from the prior judgment, which was affirmed on appeal,
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. See Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 620 F.3d
873, 878 (8th Cir. 2010) (Rule 60(d)(3) relief is extraordinary form of relief, and is
available only when it would be unconscionable to allow judgment to stand); In re
SDDS, Inc., 225 F.3d 970, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used to
collaterally attack court of appeals ruling in lieu of petition for review in United
States Supreme Court).
The judgment is affirmed. The pending motions are denied as moot.
______________________________

1

The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1507

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/24/2016 Entry ID: 4461747