Postma v. Van Otterloo

Filing 20

ORDER dismissing with prejudice 19 Motion to Vacate Judgment and to Allow for Amended and Expanded Complaint. Clerk of Court is hereby instructed to order a copy of docket entries 1-18 of case no. 96-cv-4033-DEO from the Archives Center. See text of order. Signed by Senior Judge Donald E O'Brien on 9/29/11. (Copy w/NEF to pro se filer and non-ECF parties) (Clerk sent request for file to NARA) (djs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
HAROLD O. POSTMA,
Plaintiff,

No. 96-CV-4033-DEO

vs.

ORDER

SHERIFF MIKE VAN OTTERLOO,
Defendant.
____________________
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff’s,
Harold O. Postma, motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 60(b) and 60(d)(3), filed on January 31, 2011,
requesting this Court to vacate its judgment of April 1, 1996.
Docket No. 9.

Though this Court no longer has a file related

to the judgment of April 1, 1996, docket entries reveal it
related to Mr. Postma’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition;
specifically, the judgment dismissed Mr. Postma’s § 2254
petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court
remedies.

Docket Entry No. 5, 8, and 9.

In his current

motion, Mr. Postma does not contend that he did, in fact,
exhaust his state court remedies; rather, he appears to
contend that there is either no state court corrective process
or that process is ineffective to protect his rights.

Docket

No. 19.

In his current motion, Mr. Postma also requests that

this Court give him leave to file an amended and expanded
complaint, apparently in relation to his initial 28 U.S.C. §
2254 petition.

Id.

Overall, Mr. Postma’s pending motion, absent review of
the original file and given its organization and the nature of
the factual allegations within, is difficult to follow and,
ultimately, understand.

For instance, Mr. Postma refers to

numerous events but fails to include dates, which, given the
amount of time that has lapsed since his initial 28 U.S.C. §
2254

petition,

makes

understanding

allegations a near impossibility.

the

import

of

those

He also makes sweeping

claims against various individuals and institutions but fails
to relate those claims to his motion.

He claims Lisa McNeil,

an administrator for the Third Judicial District, made false
allegations which somehow interfered with his right of access
to Iowa State Courts, though how her actions, other than
influencing the attitude of Mr. Postma’s counsel, had such a
serious result is not apparent on the face of Mr. Postma’s
motion.

Docket No. 19.

He also alleges that law enforcement

in Sioux County “intercepted mails containing notices of

2

hearing[s] and trials,” and the State of Iowa has fabricated
and manipulated his “Driver’s Licensing Records.”

It is

unclear whether the mails containing notices of judicial
proceedings related to state court, federal court, or both
federal and state court proceedings.

It is also unclear what

those proceedings were about or when they took place.

Even

more confusing, there is absolutely no indication how the
State

of

Iowa

fabricated

and

manipulated

his

driver’s

licensing records or how this figures into the various aspects
of his motion.
Though ultimately unclear, it appears Mr. Postma’s sole
claim to relief from this Court’s judgment of April 1, 1996,
relates to an alleged fraud perpetrated upon this Court by the
State court system.

Docket No. 19.

Rule 60(b)(3) provides

that relief from a judgment is appropriate where an opposing
party committed “fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct” in relation to
a judicial proceeding.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3).

A Rule

60(b)(3) motion must be sought “within a reasonable time.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(2). Rule 60(d)(3) provides that a Court
may at any time “set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.”

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3).
Overall, Mr. Postma has failed to allege adequate facts
for this Court to grant him the relief he seeks.

First, Mr.

Postma’s current motion comes almost 15 years after this
Court’s

judgment.

Absent

additional

and

understandable

factual allegations providing specific dates, this Court is
convinced Mr. Postma’s Rule 60(b) motion has not been made
within a reasonable time as required under Rule 60(c)(1).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

Second, a Rule 60(b)(3) motion

alleging fraud must be made within a year.

Id.

Third, under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), “[i]n alleging fraud .
. . a party must state with particularity the circumstances
constituting [the] fraud . . . .” Particularity requires that
a party provide the “who, what, when, where, and how:
first paragraph of any newspaper story.”

the

Great Plains Trust

Co. v. Union Pacific R. Co., 492 F.3d 986, 995 (8th Cir. 2007)
(citing DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir.).
As previously mentioned, it seems Mr. Postma is alleging the
“State court system” perpetrated a fraud on this Court, though
what this fraud consisted of, when it took place, where it
took place, or how it was achieved is unclear.

4

Docket No. 19.

Since Mr. Postma has failed to allege facts sufficient to
show that this Court’s 1996 judgment should be vacated, his
motion in relation thereto is dismissed without prejudice to
refiling. Furthermore, Mr. Postma’s motion for an amended and
expanded 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, since he has failed to
indicate that he has exhausted his state court remedies and
this

Court’s

dismissed

1996

without

judgment

is

prejudice

to

still

effective,

refiling.

is

also

Finally,

in

anticipation of Mr. Postma refiling, the Clerk of Court is
hereby instructed to order a copy of docket entries 1-18 of
case number 96-CV-4033-DEO from the Archives Center.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2011.

__________________________________
Donald E. O’Brien, Senior Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of Iowa

5