Smith v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Filing 16

ORDER denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Michael P. Mills on 2/22/16. (jtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION  

PLANTIFF  

FRED SMITH

No. 3:15-cv-00092-MPM-JMV 

v.

DEFENDANT  

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE

ORDER DENYING PLANTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER

This matter comes before the court on the motion by Fred Smith for the court to reconsider its
order granting Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) [14]. The plaintiff styles the
motion as one seeking relief from a judgment or order under FED. R. CIV. P. 60. An order granting relief
under Rule 60 must be based upon: (1) clerical mistakes, (2) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect, (3) newly discovered evidence, (4) fraud or other misconduct of an adverse party, (5)
a void judgment, or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the order.
In 2012, Plaintiff Fred Smith filed an action relating to the same foreclosure proceedings on the
same property at issue here, and asserted a number of claims. Smith v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2012 WL
4320845 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 20, 2012). This court granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo by
finding that Smith conceded the central factual issues of the case and asserted a number of utterly
frivolous claims. Id. However, Smith and his wife then filed another action relating to the same
foreclosure proceedings on the same property, which the court dismissed due to the res judicata and/or
collateral estoppel effect of prior litigation of those claims. Smith v. Jedynak, No. 3:14-cv-00059-MPMJMV (N.D. Miss. Jan. 28, 2015).
The present motion for reconsideration [15] is only the most recent of the plaintiff’s many
requests seeking relief on this matter. In the most recent petition filed, the plaintiff claims Wells Fargo
violated a number of state and federal laws in connection with the foreclosure of his home. Smith asked
1 

the court for declaratory judgment and a temporary restraining order regarding the property and
foreclosure proceedings. The court dismissed the compliant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted, specifically asserting his claims are barred by the res
judicata and/or collateral estoppel effect.
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration under the mistaken theory that the order granting the complaint’s
dismissal [14] is contrary to the record and contrary to Rule 60. In any event, the instant motion [15] is
largely a recapitulation of the petitioner’s previous requests for post-judgment relief. As such, for the
reasons set forth in the court’s previous decisions, the court holds that the instant motion [15] should be
dismissed for want of substantive merit. Mr. Smith has neither asserted nor proven any of the specific
justifications for relief from an order permitted under Rule 60. In addition, the plaintiff has not
presented any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the order [14]. As such, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration [15] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this, the 22nd day of February, 2016.  

/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI  

2