Abston v. Bramer

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to reconsider and to set aside judgment [Doc. No. 17 ] is DENIED with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 9/1/15. (KXS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RANI ABSTON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BRAMER,
Defendant,

No. 4:15CV1071 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint (Doc. No. 16) and
motion for relief from judgment (Doc. No. 17). Plaintiff is not entitled to amend her
complaint, and the motion for to set aside judgment is denied.
1.

Amended Complaint

Although the Federal Rules have a liberal policy towards amendments, “[p]ostdismissal motions to amend are disfavored,” In re Medtronic, Inc., Sprint Fidelis Leads
Products Liability Litigation, 623 F.3d 1200, 1208 (8th Cir. 2010), and amendments
should not be granted when they would be frivolous or “futile.” See Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Plaintiff restyles her complaint as a petition for writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651. She seeks an order directing the state court judge to dismiss the lawsuit against
her and ordering the Circuit Court for Phelps County to release the funds she has
deposited into its registry.

This Court lacks the power to direct state actors to act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361
(“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of
mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to
perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”) (emphasis added). Further, as discussed more
fully in the Court’s prior Memorandum and Opinion (Doc. No. 14), this Court does not
have jurisdiction to review the orders entered by the state court.

See Postma v. First

Fed. Sav. & Loan, 74 F.3d 160, 162 (8th Cir. 1996) (“federal district courts . . . lack
subject matter jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of state court decisions.”). As a
result, the proposed amendment is frivolous.
2.

Motion for Relief from Judgment

Plaintiff moves the Court to reopen this case to consider her petition for writ of
mandamus, which the Court has found to be frivolous. Additionally, plaintiff complains
that defendant and the Circuit Court for Phelps County violated Missouri law. Her
claims do not give rise to federal jurisdiction. As such, the motion to reconsider and set
aside the judgment is denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider and to set aside
judgment [Doc. No. 17] is DENIED with prejudice.
Dated this 1st day of September, 2015.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2