George v. Dunklin County Jail et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 18 MOTION to Reopen Case filed by Plaintiff Brian K. George. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to reopen case is DENIED. [Doc. 18] Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 8/10/17. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
BRIAN K. GEORGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DUNKLIN COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-CV-15-CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Brian K. George’s motion to reopen his case,
which the Court liberally construes as a motion for relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be denied.
On March 24, 2017, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), after determining that the amended complaint failed to state any
plausible claims for relief against any defendant, and that the factual allegations therein were
clearly baseless. Liberally construing the instant motion, plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Rule
60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which grants federal courts broad authority to
relieve a party from a final judgment upon such terms that are just, provided that certain
conditions are met. Relief is available under Rule 60(b) “only where exceptional circumstances
have denied the moving party a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claim and have prevented
the moving party from receiving adequate redress.” Harley v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866, 871 (8th
Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff has set forth no

“exceptional circumstances” that prevented him from fully litigating his claims or receiving

adequate redress. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to reopen his case, construed as a motion for
relief under Rule 60(b), is denied. To the extent plaintiff’s motion can be understood to seek
relief under Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P., the motion is denied because it was filed more than 28
days after the entry of the judgment, and because it fails to point to any manifest errors of law or
fact, or any newly discovered evidence.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reopen case is DENIED. [Doc.
18]

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 10th day of August, 2017.