Bugg v. Rutter et al

Filing 40

ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Eldon Bugg's Motion for Relief from Order of Dismissal with Supporting Suggestions [Doc. # 33] is DENIED. (Kanies, Renea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
ELDON BUGG,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES L. RUTTER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:08-cv-04271-NKL

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Eldon Bugg’s (“Bugg”) pro se Motion for
Relief from Order of Dismissal with Supporting Suggestions [Doc. # 33], pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion.
In November 2008, Bugg sued Defendants, alleging § 1983 claims and state law
tort claims. On March 10, 2009, Magistrate William Knox ruled Defendants’ motion to
dismiss and ordered that Bugg’s case “be dismissed in its entirety.” [Doc. # 26, at 5].
Magistrate Judge William Knox specifically found that Bugg failed to state a claim under
§ 1983, and that “[t]he court has considered plaintiff’s other claims and his suggestions in
opposition to dismissal, and finds them to be without merit.” [Doc. # 26, at 5]. After this
order, Bugg filed a complaint in Missouri state court, alleging what he characterizes as
the same state law tort claims as he did before this Court. Bugg appealed after the state
trial court dismissed Bugg’s complaint. The Missouri State Court of Appeals affirmed
1

the state trial court’s decision based on the res judicata effect of Judge Knox’s March
2009 order. Bugg v. Rutter, 330 S.W.3d 148 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). Bugg now asks that
the order of March 10, 2009 be vacated in its entirety, “thus allowing said claims to be
litigated in this court, or alternatively to modify [the order] to clearly state that plaintiff’s
pendent state law claims are dismissed “without prejudice” so that plaintiff can litigate his
state law claims in state court.” [Doc. # 33, at 1].
Bugg appears to argue that Judge Knox did not dismiss Bugg’s state law claims for
failure to state a claim because it actually declined to take jurisdiction over those claims.
He reaches that conclusion because Judge Knox denied Bugg’s Rule 59 motion which
had asked for clarification or leave to amend his complaint, [Doc. # 28]. According to
Bugg, Judge Knox “affirmed” Bugg’s understanding of the March 10, 2009 order of
dismissal when he recommended denial of Bugg’s Rule 59 motion [Doc. # 32].
Judge Knox’s dismissal order, however, was clear: he had considered all of Bugg’s
claims and suggestions in opposition to dismissal for failure to state a claim and found
them to be without merit.

He had also considered Defendants’ suggestions in support of

their motion to dismiss which had specifically asked that Bugg’s state law claims under
Count VIII should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because “Plaintiff does not
attempt to identify any specific state tort cause of action under Count VIII of his
complaint. . . . It is not up to the court or the parties to decipher what state claims
plaintiff wishes to allege.” [Doc. # 15, at 8-9]. After full consideration of the matter,
Judge Knox stated Bugg’s case was “dismissed in its entirety.” [Doc. # 26, at 5]. It is

2

clear that Judge Knox did dismiss with prejudice Bugg’s state law claims and Bugg has
failed to demonstrate to this Court “exceptional circumstances” that would merit relief
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). See In re Zimmerman, 869 F.2d 1126, 1128 (8th Cir.
1989). Furthermore, the Court finds that Bugg’s Rule 60 motion was not timely filed
because he was on notice since 2009 that his state law claims had been dismissed with
prejudice. Further, rather than appealing Judge Knox’s decision, he seeks to challenge it
in a Rule 60 motion. That is an improper use of Rule 60.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Eldon Bugg’s Motion for Relief from Order of Dismissal with
Supporting Suggestions [Doc. # 33] is DENIED.

s/ Nanette K. Laughrey
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
United States District Judge
Dated: June 13, 2011
Jefferson City, Missouri

3