Doe v. University of Arkansas - Fayetteville, et al

Filing 52

OPINION AND ORDER denying 51 Motion for Relief to Reopen Case (see Order for specifics). Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on May 10, 2022. (tg)

Case 5:21-cv-05231-PKH Document 52

Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 2036

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JOAN DOE
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 5:21-CV-05231

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS –
FAYETTEVILLE et al.

DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion (Doc. 51) filed pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b). Defendants have not filed a response, but no response is necessary. The
motion will be denied.
On March 28, 2022, the Court entered an opinion and order (Doc. 46) granting Defendants’
motion (Doc. 33) to dismiss. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion (Doc. 48) to amend or alter
judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), which the Court denied
(Doc. 50) because Plaintiff did not provide the Court with any newly discovered evidence or law
to convince the Court there existed a manifest error of law or fact or that she was otherwise entitled
to relief under Rule 60(b).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides a list of circumstances under which a party
may be relieved from a final judgment, order, or proceeding, including mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct
by an opposing party, or; “any other reason that justifies relief.” The Eighth Circuit has recognized
that Rule 60(b) “provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon an adequate
showing of exceptional circumstances.” United States v. Young, 806 F.2d 805, 806 (8th Cir. 1986).
It is important to note, however, that a Rule 60(b) motion “is not a vehicle for simple reargument
on the merits.” Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff’s motion does
1

Case 5:21-cv-05231-PKH Document 52

Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 2037

not present argument that would allow the Court to find any of the Rule 60(b) circumstances
present. Plaintiff attempts to explain her confusion on how service of process should be completed
and reargues that service upon counsel for certain Defendants, Mr. Joe Cordi, was sufficient to
effect service on his clients. This argument was fully addressed in this Court’s prior opinion an
order, and, absent any newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence which properly
supports this contention, any reargument on this point is an issue to be taken up on appeal.
Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 51) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2022.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2