Black v. VanBuren

Filing 41

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 38] is denied. 38 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 4/26/19. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LC BLACK,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants,

No. 4:17CV01376 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion to Reopen the Case,
[Doc. No. 38]. Defendant opposes the Motion in its Response filed on April 19,
2019, [Doc. No. 40]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
Upon review of the motion the Court is compelled to construe Plaintiff’s
motion as a motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
As such, the basis for the Rule 60(b) motion is the ruling by the court on April 8,
2019 [Doc. No. 37] granting the Motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 33] filed by Defendant
on February 12, 2019.
Discussion
Rule 60(b) provides relief from a final judgment , order or proceeding under
circumstances where there has been some mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
1

excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence, with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for new trial; fraud, misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; the judgment is void; 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 any other
reason that justifies relief.
In his Motion, Plaintiff attempts to persuade the Court to grant relief from its
findings because his opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss was timely filed
and therefore must be considered by this Court. Plaintiff does not allege anything
that is new, fraud, or that the judgment is void. He does not allege a mistake or
inadvertence or any other reason to justify the relief he seeks. Plaintiff has not
articulated any arguments or facts that would even facially compel relief pursuant to
Rule 60(b). The Court articulated its reasoning in finding that Plaintiff’s pleading
was jurisdictionally deficient. In addition, upon reviewing Plaintiff’s Reply in
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 39] and for the limited purpose of ruling
on his Rule 60(b) motion nothing has changed, nor should the Opinion,
Memorandum and Order in this matter be altered or amended.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
2

[Doc. No. 38] is denied.
Dated this 25th day of April, 2019.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3