Williams v. Kassebaum
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case (Docket No. 17 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 1/18/2017. (CBL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon plaintiff Troy Williams’s Motion to Reopen Case.
(Docket No. 17). The motion will be denied.
This case began on December 11, 2014, when plaintiff, a resident at the Northwest
Missouri Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center, filed a complaint in this Court against Nancy
Kassebaum, a former senator for the State of Kansas. Therein, plaintiff alleged that he wrote to
Kassebaum about his idea to cure numerous diseases, and sent her a formula. On January 22,
2015, after determining that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief, this Court dismissed
plaintiff’s complaint. (Docket No. 5). On March 2, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Docket No. 8). Therein, he referenced the proper case
number, and stated that he wished to appeal his case. (Id.) On May 26, 2015, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s case. (Docket No. 13). The Court of Appeals
issued its Mandate on July 7, 2015. (Docket No. 14).
In support of the instant motion, plaintiff states that he did not receive notice of dismissal
until 2016. However, this assertion is belied by the fact that plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
March 2, 2015, stating that he wished to appeal his case. As other grounds for reopening his
case, plaintiff states that Kassebaum has a listening device, and he also makes statements related
to formulas, vaccines, and his own health.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), “the court may relieve a party ... from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding for” reasons including “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence ...; (3) fraud ...; (4) the judgment is void; (5)
... applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.”
“A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2),
and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the
proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Rule 60(b) relief is limited, and “a district court should
grant a Rule 60(b) motion only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.” PNC
Bank, Nat. Ass’n v. El Tovar, Inc., No. 4:13–CV–1073 CAS, 2014 WL 562648, at *3 (E.D. Mo.
Feb. 13, 2014) (citations omitted). Further, “Rule 60(b) ‘is not a vehicle for simple reargument
on the merits.’” Id. (quoting Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 1999)).
The Court has carefully considered the instant motion, and has determined that it will be
denied. First, the motion is untimely, as it was filed nearly two years after his case was
dismissed. Even if it were timely, none of the reasons plaintiff states can be said to amount to an
adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case (Docket No. 17) is
Dated this 18th day of January, 2017.
E. RICHARD WEBBER
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?