Greene v. Gassman et al

Filing 109

ORDER denying 107 Motion to Reconsider (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 06/02/14. (BJS) cc: Greene on 6/2/2014 (KNK).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA KYLE GREENE, Case No. 11-CV-0618 (PJS/TNL) Plaintiff, v. ORDER CANDEE S. GASSMAN; ELIZABETH W. CUMMINS; ERIC S. OELRICH; KRISTI STANISLAWSKI; JUDGE STEVEN E. DRANGE; JUDGE VICKIE E. LANDWEHR; MEEKER COUNTY, MINNESOTA; STEARNS COUNTY, MINNESOTA; and ERIC BOUCHER, Defendants. Plaintiff Kyle Greene previously moved for relief from the judgment entered in this case on the basis of what he characterized as newly discovered evidence. See ECF No. 98; Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). The Court denied this motion in an order dated May 5, 2014. See ECF No. 105. Greene now moves for reconsideration of that denial. See ECF No. 107. As explained in the Court’s May 5 order, however, Greene plainly filed his motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(2) too late. See ECF No. 105 at 1-2. Moreover, nothing in Greene’s motion for reconsideration convinces the Court that it erred in this case, either in granting judgment in favor of defendants or in denying Greene’s Rule 60(b)(2) motion. Accordingly, Greene’s motion for reconsideration is denied. Greene has also filed a “notice to the court” in which he characterizes his earlier motion as one for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), not Rule 60(b)(2). See ECF No. 106. Even if Greene’s earlier motion had been brought under Rule 60(b)(1) (and it was not, see ECF No. 98 at 1), the Court would have denied that motion. Rule 60(b)(1) is governed by the same one-year limitations period as Rule 60(b)(2), see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c), and thus any motion brought by Greene under either provision would have been time-barred. Further, Rule 60(b)(1) could not possibly apply in this case; the evidence cited by Greene as the basis for his motion for relief from judgment did not exist until two years after judgment was entered, and thus the Court’s “failure” to consider that evidence at the time judgment was entered obviously could not have been the result of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). ORDER Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff Kyle Greene’s motion to reconsider [ECF No. 107] is DENIED. Dated: June 2 , 2014 s/Patrick J. Schiltz Patrick J. Schiltz United States District Judge -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?