Tyler, et al v. Carnahan, et al

Filing 264

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Tyler's "Petition Under Rule 60(b)(6) and For Clarification," construed as a motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), is DENIED. [Doc. 263]. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 2/9/2016. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MELVIN LEROY TYLER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MEL CARNAHAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:94-CV-17 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This closed prisoner civil rights matter is before the Court on plaintiff Melvin Leroy Tyler’s
“Petition Under Rule 60(b)(6) and For Clarification.” No response has been filed by the defendants
and the time to do so has passed. The Court construes the “Petition” as a motion.
The motion seeks “clarification” and accuses “the defendants and their agents with
suppression of material facts and evidence.” Plaintiff seeks a “clear define [sic] ruling” that (1) this
action did not include a claim that the plaintiffs did not have salad bars and brunches on the
weekends, and were seeking injunctive relief and millions of dollars in damages for that violation;
(2) the defendants suppressed material evidence that contaminated foods were being served to the
plaintiffs, citing United States v. West, 942 F.2d 528 (8th Cir. 1991); and (3) “dozens and dozens
of Missouri Department of Corrections inmates had died from tuberculosis prior to this suit and it
was all suppressed from plaintiffs.” Mot. at 1. Plaintiff seeks an order under Rule 60(b)(6) that
“clear indicates, that the dozens of tuberculosis deaths and feeding contaminate[d] foods to prisoners
was unethic[a]l” and that “plaintiffs never filed a law suit as described by Jeremiah Nixon in this
case.” Id. at 2. Attached as exhibits to the motion are photocopies of a Missouri Department of

Corrections publication titled “Somewhere in Time,” newspaper and magazine articles, and court
decisions.
Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court, on motion, to “relieve
a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding” for “any other reason
that justifies relief.” The Eighth Circuit has stated, “Relief is available under Rule 60(b)(6) 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).
Rule 60 also requires that “[a] motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable
time. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). The determination of reasonable time under the Rule is “dependent
on the particular facts of the case in question and is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Watkins v.
Lundell, 169 F.3d 540, 544 (8th Cir. 1999). The default judgment at issue in Watkins was allowed
to stand without objection for seventeen months. Id. Although the question of timeliness was not
raised by the parties, the Eighth Circuit stated it had “considerable trepidation” about the timeliness
of the Rule 60(b) motion in Watkins. Id.
This case was closed on May 1, 1996, almost twenty years ago. The “reasonable time” to
vacate the judgment has passed long ago. Further, plaintiff makes no showing of exceptional
circumstances to come within the scope of Rule 60(b)(6).

2

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Tyler’s “Petition Under Rule 60(b)(6) and For
Clarification,” construed as a motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), is DENIED. [Doc. 263]

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 9th day of February, 2016.

3