Flenoid v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant's third motion for relief from judgment [Doc. 84 ] is DENIED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners other motions [Docs. 85 - 86 ] are DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/6/13. (ARL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 4:07CV0008 RWS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on movant’s third motion for relief from judgment
under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion will be denied.
Movant brought this action on January 3, 2007. The Court dismissed the
§ 2255 motion on June 18, 2009, without issuing a certificate of appealability.
Movant filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied. The Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied movant a certificate of appealability on February 26,
2010. Movant filed a second motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied.
Movant appealed from the denial, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the Court’s decision.
Movant now argues that the Court erred when it dismissed the case in 2007 and
violated his right to due process of law. This is the same argument he made in his
first two motions for reconsideration.
Rule 60(b) “provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon
an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.” United States v. Young, 806
F.2d 805, 806 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 836 (1987).
Moreover, under Rule 60(c)(1), “[a] motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within
a reasonable time.”
Having reviewed movant’s third motion for reconsideration, I do not find that
movant has made an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances that might
warrant extraordinary relief. Movant disagrees with the Court’s 2009 ruling on his
case. Movant has filed two previous motions for reconsideration and two appeals in
an effort to change that decision. Movant may not simply file the same meritless brief
over and over and expect different results. This is a waste of judicial resources. As
a result, the motion for reconsideration will be denied with prejudice.
Additionally, the Court would also deny the motion for the reason that it has
not been made in a reasonable time.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant’s third motion for relief from
judgment [Doc. 84] is DENIED with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s other motions [Docs. 85-86]
are DENIED as moot.
Dated this 6th day of March, 2013.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
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?