Smalley v. Davis et al

Filing 29

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to reopen case 27 isDENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 11/27/2017. (CAR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
JAMES SMALLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
L. DAVIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:16-cv-25-JMB

ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon plaintiff James Smalley’s “Motion to Reopen Case,”
which this Court interprets as having been filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 27/filed September 7, 2017). The motion will be denied.
The procedural history of this case is fully set forth in the Memorandum and Order
entered on October 28, 2016. Briefly, however, plaintiff’s case was dismissed because he
repeatedly and willfully refused to comply with Court orders, and persistently failed to prosecute
his case in a serious manner. Now, nearly one year later, plaintiff moves to reopen his case. In
support, he states that he had been held in administrative segregation. However, he does not
explain how this placement caused him to file documents that failed to comply with Court
orders. Plaintiff also states that he has been placed in administrative segregation in other
institutions in which he has been held, and that such placements are done to “vex” him. These
statements do not amount to a demonstration of the exceptional circumstances required to obtain
relief under Rule 60. See Brooks v. Ferguson-Florissant School Dist., 113 F.3d 903, 904 (8th
Cir. 1997).

Having carefully considered the motion, the Court concludes that plaintiff has not made a
sufficient showing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reopen his case. The motion
will therefore be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reopen case (Docket No. 27) is
DENIED.

/s/ John M. Bodenhausen
JOHN M. BODENHAUSEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 27th day of November, 2017.