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)

Download PDF
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.

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?