Pliscott v. Colvin et al
ORDER re 26 Request filed by Kristina Pliscott (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 09/23/14. (SMD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Case No.13cv01390 (SRN/SER)
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Kristina Pliscott, plaintiff pro se.
Ann M. Bildtsen, Assistant United States Attorney, 600 United States Courthouse, 300
Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Defendant.
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s Response to Judgment and
Request for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 26], which the Court construes as a Motion for
Reconsideration. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.
The factual and procedural background of this matter is thoroughly detailed in the
Magistrate Judge’s Amended Report & Recommendation (R&R) and is incorporated
herein by reference. (Am. R&R [Doc. No. 15].) Briefly, Plaintiff Kristina Pliscott
(“Pliscott”) filed this action, challenging a 2009 decision by the Department of Social
Security that denied her application for disability benefits. Although she had requested,
and had been granted, two sixty-day extensions of the time to file a civil action, she did
not file this action until June 7, 2013 [Doc. No. 1], more than two years after the filing
period provided by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) had expired.
The Magistrate Judge issued an R&R on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,
finding that Pliscott’s Complaint not timely filed. (Am. R&R [Doc. No. 15] at 7.)
Moreover, the Court determined that Pliscott’s delay in filing was due only to a lack of
diligence on her part, and accordingly, equitable tolling was not warranted. (Id. at 8.)
Concluding that this case is time-barred under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Magistrate Judge
recommended dismissal of this action. (Id.)
Plaintiff objected to the R&R, arguing, among other things, that her deadline to file
should have been tolled on the basis of the Defendant’s purportedly fraudulent behavior
by citing the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). After
carefully considering and rejecting Pliscott’s claims, this Court ultimately adopted the
Amended R&R in its entirety. (Order [Doc. No. 23].) Plaintiff then filed this motion for
Motions for reconsideration are expressly disfavored by the Court. “Motions to
reconsider are prohibited except by express permission of the Court, which will be
granted only upon a showing of compelling circumstances.” D. Minn. LR 7.1(h). Instead,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) only “authorizes relief based on certain enumerated circumstances
(for example, fraud, changed conditions, and the like.)” Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d
987, 989 (8th Cir.1999). As the Eighth Circuit has noted, “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure do not mention motions for reconsideration.” Id., at 990. A Rule 60(b) motion,
brought as a “motion for reconsideration,” “is not a vehicle for simple reargument on the
merits,” even where the movant reargues the merits “somewhat more fully.” Id., at 98990.
Plaintiff’s motion essentially reargues a position that has already been rejected by
this Court. There is no RICO claim in this case that tolls the expiration of the September
11, 2010 extension. As a result, the Court must deny her request for reconsideration.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing and all the files, records and proceedings
herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Response to Judgment and Request
for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 26] is DENIED.
Dated: September 23, 2014
s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
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?