Goins v. Dickey et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 17 MOTION to Reopen Case filed by Plaintiff Donahue Goins motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail to Plaintiff Donahoe Goins the Court's form for filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on April 16, 2014. (Memordandum and Order and form 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 sent to plaintiff this date.)(MCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DEREK DICKEY, et al.,
No. 4:12CV01584 ERW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Donahue Goins’ Motion to Reopen Case
[ECF No. 17].
On August 29, 2012, Plaintiff Donahue Goins, an inmate at the Eastern Reception
Diagnostic and Correctional Center (ERDCC) in Bonne Terre, Missouri, filed a pro se Complaint
against various ERDCC employees, seeking monetary and injunctive relief in an action brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 30, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the
Court dismissed, without prejudice, all of Plaintiff’s claims, except his claims for monetary relief
against Defendants Derek Dickey and Thomas Bromley, in their individual capacities, for
allegedly violating Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States
Constitution by physically and sexually assaulting him. See ECF Nos. 7-8. Thereafter, the Court
issued a Case Management Order [ECF No. 12].
At some point, Plaintiff was released on parole from prison, but failed to update his
current mailing address. Additionally, he failed to comply with deadlines set forth in the Case
Management Order. Therefore, on July 16, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by
July 31, 2013 why this action should not be dismissed for failure to abide by rules of this Court
and failure to prosecute.
The Court also ordered Plaintiff to verify his correct contact
Plaintiff failed to make such showings, and on August 22, 2013 the Court
dismissed his case without prejudice. In the instant Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to reopen
this case and another case dismissed by the Honorable Henry Autrey. Plaintiff’s most current
address information indicates he has returned to ERDCC.
The Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen as a motion for relief under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See, e.g., Collum v. PayPal, No. 8:12CV153, 2012 WL
3760792, *1 (D. Neb. Aug. 29, 2012). Under Rule 60(b), district courts may “vacate a judgment
that was secured through a party’s misrepresentations, among other things, and for ‘any other
reason justifying relief.’” Harley v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866, 870 (2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(3), (6)). However, “Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only the most exceptional of cases.”
Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 545 v. Hope Elec. Corp., 293 F.3d 409, 415 (8th
Here, Plaintiff has failed to show the requisite exceptional circumstances. At the time
Plaintiff filed his Motion, over five months had passed since the Court dismissed this action.
Additionally, Plaintiff breached his affirmative duty to “promptly notify the Clerk and all other
parties to the proceedings of any change in his . . . address and telephone number.” Local Rule
45-2.06(B). Failure to notify the Court of a change address within 30 days is cause for dismissal.
Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion, without prejudice to filing a new
Complaint.1 Any new Complaint filed by Plaintiff should take into consideration the Court’s
The Court also notes, in his Motion, Plaintiff seems to assert new claims by stating that, while
some previously named Defendants have resigned from their employment with ERDCC, “the
torment goes on.” ECF No. 17 at 2. He further indicates his desire for an immediate “transfer
and/or restraining order.” ECF No. 17 at 2. Plaintiff’s new claims are best addressed in a new
Order of Partial Dismissal [ECF No. 8] and Memorandum and Order dated January 30, 2013
[ECF No. 7], in which the Court dismissed, without prejudice, all of Plaintiff’s claims, except his
claims for monetary relief against Defendants Derek Dickey and Thomas Bromley, in their
individual capacities, for allegedly violating Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of
the United States Constitution by physically and sexually assaulting him.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Donahue Goins’ Motion to Reopen Case
[ECF No. 17] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail to Plaintiff Donahue
Goins the Court’s form for filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Dated this 16th Day of April, 2014.
E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR 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?