Bice v. Jordan
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 8 MOTION for Reconsideration re 6 Order of Dismissal, 5 Memorandum & Order, filed by Plaintiff Gary Dee Bice. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gary Dee Bice's motion (Doc. 8 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk on 2/16/21. (CSG)
Case: 1:20-cv-00263-SEP Doc. #: 9 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 36
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
GARY DEE BICE,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00263-SEP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This closed civil matter is before the Court upon receipt of a letter from Gary D. Bice,
prison registration number 177348. The Court has liberally construed the letter as a motion
seeking reconsideration of the December 18, 2020, dismissal of this action. For the reasons that
follow, the motion will be denied.
As fully set forth in the Court’s December 18, 2020, Memorandum and Order, Bice is a
prisoner who is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and his case was dismissed without prejudice to
the filing of a fully-paid complaint. Doc. . In his letter, Bice expresses disappointment that
the case was dismissed because he has no money. He reasserts allegations that people have
compromised his bank account and asks the Court to assist him in filing charges against them.
Bice did not frame his motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but it can be
considered the functional equivalent of a motion under either Rule 59(e) or 60(b). Rule 59(e)
allows a court to correct its own mistakes in the time immediately following judgment. Rule
59(e) motions “serve a limited function of correcting ‘manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence.’” Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the
Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp.,
839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir.1998)). “Such motions cannot be used to introduce new evidence,
tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to
entry of judgment.” Id. Rule 60(b) allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment for,
Case: 1:20-cv-00263-SEP Doc. #: 9 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 37
among other reasons, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b). It “provides for ‘extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon an adequate
showing of exceptional circumstances.’” U.S. Xpress Enters., Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 320
F.3d 809, 815 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Young, 806 F.2d 805, 806 (8th Cir.
1987)). Rules 59(e) and 60(b) are analyzed identically. United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer
Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 935 n.3 (8th Cir. 2006).
The Court has reviewed Bice’s motion and finds no basis for altering or amending its
prior judgment. The motion does not point to any manifest errors of law or fact or any newly
discovered evidence, nor does it demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting relief.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gary Dee Bice’s motion (Doc. ) is DENIED.
Dated this 16th day of February, 2021.
SARAH E. PITLYK
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?