Klaassen v. Michigan, State of et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT [DOC. 12]. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

Case 2:09-cv-12982-AC-VMM ECF No. 14 filed 09/13/18

PageID.99

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JODIE LEE KLAASSEN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-12982

vs.
HON. AVERN COHN
STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (Doc. 12)
I.
In 2009, plaintiff, proceeding pro se and without payment of the filing fee, filed a
complaint against defendants. The Court summarily dismissed the complaint shortly
thereafter. Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion under Rule 60(b) seeking to reopen her
case. (Doc. 12). For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
II.
On July 29, 2009, plaintiff filed a 26 single-spaced page complaint naming 19
defendants including the State of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Corrections,
the Michigan Sheriff Association, the Michigan Association of Community Mental Health
Boards, Advanced Behavior Medicine, various hospitals, the Michigan Department of
Education, the Michigan Bar Association, the Archdiocese of Detroit, and various
families such as “the Cornwell Family” and the “Rutherford Family.” As best as could be
gleaned, plaintiff claimed police brutality, “false incarcerations,” harassment
prosecutorial misconduct, professional misconduct, and workplace retaliation. For

Case 2:09-cv-12982-AC-VMM ECF No. 14 filed 09/13/18

PageID.100

Page 2 of 3

relief, plaintiff sought $30 million and that “any ‘criminal’ charges [be] expunged from”
her record. Because the complaint failed to state what claims were being asserted
against who or the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court directed plaintiff to file an
amended complaint. (Doc. 3).
On August 20, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 5). On August
26, 2009, the Court dismissed the amended complaint on the grounds that to the extent
plaintiff was challenging various state court decisions, the Court was barred from
reviewing those decisions under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Court also found
that any other claims were frivolous or failed to state a viable claim and therefore must
be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Doc. 4). Plaintiff did not appeal the
dismissal.
Over three years after the dismissal, in September of 2012, plaintiff filed a motion
to reopen, alleging “ongoing abuses and socioeconomic hardship.” (Doc. 6). The Court
denied the motion. (Doc. 7).
In 2016, plaintiff filed a motion under Rule 60(b). (Doc. 10). Plaintiff alleged on
ongoing conspiracy of abuses against her and her children by the state courts and
others. The Court denied the motion. (Doc. 11).
In 2018, nine years after the dismissal, plaintiff has filed a paper styled “Motion
for Relief from Collections/Malice to do Fiscal Harm to Plaintiffs” which is now before the
Court. (Doc. 12). The Court construes the paper as a motion for relief from judgment.

III.
2

Case 2:09-cv-12982-AC-VMM ECF No. 14 filed 09/13/18

PageID.101

Page 3 of 3

Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part:
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered
Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court
may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order,
or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3)
fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,
or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the
judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon
which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer
equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other
reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
A motion under Rule 60(b) must be filed within a reasonable time and for reasons under
subsections (1), (2) and (3), “no more than one year after entry of the judgment or order
or the date of the proceedings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c).
Plaintiff has not satisfied this standard. First, the motion was brought nine years
after the dismissal. That is not a reasonable time. Moreover, the motion, which
appears to be a restatement of much of the allegations in the amended complaint and
prior motion for relief from judgment, fails to convince the Court that plaintiff is entitled to
the extraordinary remedy of relief from judgment. To the contrary, the motion
underscores the fact that the case was properly dismissed.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 9/13/2018
Detroit, Michigan

3