Brown et al v. Schweitzer et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to reopen [# 3 ] is DENIED.. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 6/29/2016. (CLO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
GORDON D. SCHWEITZER, et al.,
No. 4:84CV2189 CEJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff Theodis Brown’s motion to reopen this case that was
previously dismissed by the Court.
Plaintiff brought this action against various officials of the City of St. Louis, asserting
claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985 and claims based on the Voting Rights
Act, the Federal Communications Act, and the First Amendment. Defendants moved to dismiss
plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the Court granted the
motion on October 29, 1984.
Defendant moves, thirty-two (32) years later to reopen the case, stating in a conclusory
manner that he has “new evidence” to support his claims. Attached to his motion are ten (10)
pages of unidentified documents that do not address the allegations within the instant action, or
address specifically plaintiff’s allegations against defendant Schweitzer.
The Court finds no grounds for relief from final judgment in this action. See
Fed.R.Civ.P.60(b); see also, Int=l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 545 v. Hope Elec.
Corp., 293 F.3d 409, 415 (8th Cir. 2002) (“Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only the most
exceptional of cases.”). Moreover, plaintiff’s motion, filed more than thirty-two years after the
judgment, has not been brought within a reasonable time. Fed.R.Civ.P.60(c). As such, the
plaintiff will not be permitted to reopen the case. Further, the Court finds that an appeal of the
denial of plaintiff’s motion would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reopen [#3] is DENIED.
Dated this 29th day of June, 2016.
CAROL E. JACKSON
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?