Craig v. Shumate et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 14 motion for reconsideration. A copy of this Order has been mailed to pro se defendant Amanda Sue Shumate, 910 Pleasant Ridge Rd, Anderson, MO 64831. Signed on 03/06/2025 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. (Rotellini, Michael) Modified on 3/6/2025 to include mailing of Order to Amanda Sue Shumate. (Rotellini, Michael).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICHARD CRAIG

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
PAUL SHUMATE and
AMANDA SUE SHUMATE,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:25-cv-05013-MDH

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Pro Se Motion for Reconsideration and Demand for
Explanation (Doc. 14). Defendants ask this Court to reconsider its order on March 4, 2025 denying
Defendants various motions and remanding the case back to the Circuit Court of McDonald
County, Missouri. (Doc. 13).
The Eighth Circuit has held, “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) was adopted to clarify
a district court’s power to correct its own mistakes in the time period immediately following entry
of judgment.” Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. Of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d
1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). Motions under Rule 59(e) may only correct
manifest errors or present newly discovered evidence. Id. Petitioners may not rely on Rule 59(e)
to introduce new evidence or raise new arguments or theories. Id.
Here, the Court has made no mistake in its Order to remand. When evaluating whether
federal question jurisdiction exists, federal courts utilize the “well-pleaded complaint rule” and
look only at the face of the complaint. Gore v. Trans World Airlines, 210 F.3d 944, 948 (8th Cir.
2000) (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1986)). “When a complaint asserts

1

only state law claims, the case cannot be removed to federal court based on either a counterclaim
or an anticipated defense that arise under federal law.” State of Missouri et al., Tomas Ceasar
Popson, 2021 WL 5546461 at *4 (W.D. Mo. 2021). 1 As referenced earlier in this Court’s Order to
Remand (Doc. 13) and in the first instance of remand in Craig v. Shumate et. al., 3:24-CV-05096SRB, Doc. 13 Plaintiff’s Complaint listed only a cause for unlawful detainer under Missouri law
and presented no federal law claims. Thus, by that very act, the federal courts do not have
jurisdiction over this matter.
Further, the federal courts share concerns for finality and consistency and has generally
declined to expand opportunities for collateral attack on a state’s judgment of finality. Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484–85, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2371, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994). Judgment
against Defendants on the state unlawful detainer action was entered on February 10, 2025. As
such the proper place to appeal that decision is within the state court of appeals and not as a
collateral attack through the federal court system.
For the reasons stated, Defendants’ Pro Se Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 6, 2025

/s/ Douglas Harpool______
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
United States District Judge

See also Baker v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., 745 F.3d 919, 923 (8th Cir. 2014); Cent. Iowa Power Co-op. v.
Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 561 F.3d 904, 912 (8th Cir. 2009); Beneficial Nat. Bank v.
Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6, 123 S. Ct. 2058, 2062, 156 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2003).
1

2