Hinds v. United States Government

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to reconsider (ECF No. 56 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in light of Plaintiff's notice as to the civil cover sheet and civil nature of suit (ECF No. 60), the Clerk of the Court shall assign to this lawsuit a nature of suit code of 950: Constitutional-State Statute, and a cause of action code of 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s).1 Plaintiff is advised that the Court cannot assign more than one code to any given action. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on August 18, 2017. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TERRY LEE HINDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-750 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s July
11, 2017 Order (“July 11 Order”). ECF No. 56. In his motion, Plaintiff argues, inter alia,
that it was a clear error of law when the Court construed his hybrid pleading (ECF No.
44) as an amended complaint, granted Defendant an extension of time to file a responsive
pleading, and denied as moot Plaintiff’s motions to vacate the Court’s orders requiring
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Defendant opposes the motion.
A “motion to reconsider” is not explicitly contemplated by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir. 1999). The Court
must first determine whether a “motion for reconsideration” is in fact a Rule 59(e)
“Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment,” or a Rule 60(b) “Motion for Relief from
Judgment or Order.” Id. Here, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is not directed to a
final judgment. Instead, it is directed to a nonfinal order. Therefore, the Court will
construe the motion for reconsideration as a Rule 60(b) motion.

Rule 60(b) allows relief from an order due to: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,
could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3)
fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct
by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that
justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); see also Elder–Keep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 984
(8th Cir. 2006). Relief under “Rule 60(b) is an “extraordinary remedy” that is “justified
only under ‘exceptional circumstances.’ ” Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Natl. Park Med.
Ctr., Inc., 413 F.3d 897, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Watkins v. Lundell, 169 F.3d 540,
544 (8th Cir. 1999)). Further, “[r]elief is available under Rule 60(b)(6) only where
exceptional circumstances have denied the moving party a full and fair opportunity to
litigate his claim and have prevented the moving party from receiving adequate redress.”
Harley v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir. 2005). The Rule 60(b)(6) catch-all
provision is not a vehicle for setting forth arguments that were made or could have been
made earlier in the proceedings. See Broadway, 193 F.3d at 989–90.
In his motion to reconsider, Plaintiff raises the same arguments that he has
advanced in various pleadings throughout this litigation. The Court has carefully
reviewed the motion and concludes that Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden under Rule
60(b). His motion and related filings include arguments that were or could have been
made earlier in the proceedings. Furthermore, Plaintiff has provided the Court with no
2

exceptional circumstances that might constitute grounds for the Court to reconsider its
July 11 Order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (ECF No. 56) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in light of Plaintiff’s notice as to the civil
cover sheet and civil nature of suit (ECF No. 60), the Clerk of the Court shall assign to
this lawsuit a nature of suit code of 950: Constitutional-State Statute, and a cause of
action code of 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s). 1 Plaintiff is advised that the
Court cannot assign more than one code to any given action.
Dated this 18th day of August, 2017.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Plaintiff correctly points out that while the codes seem to implicate the constitutionality
of state, rather than federal, statutes, the civil nature of suit code description for 950
includes an “[a]ction drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state
statute.”
3