Flanigan v. Bank of America et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs post-dismissal motion to reopen the present action [Doc. # 18 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall not be allowed to file any additional motions in this closed case. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 8/3/16. (JAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

KIM YEVETTE FLANIGAN,
Plaintiff,

v.
BANK OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15CV1191 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs post-dismissal, post-appellate motion to
reopen her case. [Doc. #18]. The motion will be denied.
Plaintiff, who filed the instant action prose, sought this Court's intervention into her state
law divorce proceedings which occurred in 2013. In her complaint, which was dismissed by this
Court on August 27, 2015, plaintiff stated that her ex-husband, Gerald Smith, divorced her in
February of 2013, in St. Louis County Court. Plaintiff claimed that at the time of the trial in her
divorce proceedings, in December of 2012, she was confined in the Metropolitan Psychiatric
Center pending felony charges in St. Louis County Circuit Court, Case No. 1OSL-CR4806, on an
indictment for forgery, and on charges for property damage and for peace disturbance, in Case
No. 12SL-CR2940. 1 Plaintiff asserted that the divorce decree was decided wrongfully and she
requested that this Court overturn the divorce and assist her in tracing money that used to be held
in what was once joint bB.nk accounts opened under the names Gerald and Kim Smith.
The Court dismissed this action, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
on August 27~ 2015. See Fed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(3). Plaintiffs appeal of the dismissal was dismissed
1

According to Court records, plaintiff was represented by both a Guardian ad Litem, as well as
her own attorney in the divorce proceedings.

on April 7, 2016, due to plaintiffs failure to prosecute her appeal. See Flanigan v. Bank of

America, No. 16-1533 (8th Cir. 2016).
Plaintiff states in her motion that she wishes to "reopen" the present matter because she
was. "in jail" and "didn't have the money to pay for [her] case to be reheard and also change of
address." None of the aforementioned reasons establish jurisdiction in this Court for the present
action. Thus, the Court will deny plaintiffs action to reopen this case.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs post-dismissal motion to reopen the present
action [Doc. #18] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall not be allowed to file any additional
motions in this closed case.
Dated this 3rd day of August, 2016.

J

2

A.ROSS I
TEDS;ATES DISTRICT JUDGE