United States of America v. United States Currency in the Amount of $43,920.00

Filing 58

ORDER denying 55 claimant's Motion to vacate summary judgment order. Clerk to send copy of this order via regular and certified mail to claimant. Signed on 4/15/11 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda) Modified on 4/ 15/2011 to note copy of ORDER mailed via USPS First Class Mail and certified mail (article #7005 1820 0003 5930 1084) on this date to claimant Larry Paul Goodyke, 429530-048, La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 3000, Anthony, TX 88021 (Moore, Terri).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES CURRENCY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $43,920.00, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 08-00649-CV-W-FJG

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Claimant Larry Paul Goodyke’s second Motion to
Vacate Summary Judgment Order (Doc. No. 55). Claimant seeks to vacate the Court’s
Order granting Summary Judgment for Plaintiff, entered on March 14, 2010 (Doc. No.
48).
In this civil forfeiture action, the Court’s summary judgment ruling allowed the
government to seize the property named in the Complaint due to its involvement in the
criminal violations for which Goodyke was convicted. Claimant moves the Court to
vacate the Summary Judgment Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b), which sets forth grounds for relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.
Claimant argues he was deprived of due process of law because he did not receive a
copy of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or this Court’s Order granting
Summary Judgment until long after the Court issued the ruling. Goodyke raised the
same argument in his first Motion to Vacate (Doc. No. 50), which we denied. That
ruling, contained in the Court’s order of March 14, 2010 (Doc. No. 48), is now the law of
the case, and there is no need to revisit it. See Pepper v. United States,131 S. Ct.

1229, 1250 (2011) (when a court decides upon a rule of law, law of the case doctrine
posits that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in
the same case).
Claimant has set forth additional arguments in the pending motion that he claims
entitle him to relief under Rule 60(b). However, because he could have raised each of
his arguments at the summary judgment stage, Rule 60(b) is of no avail. See Broadway
v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Claimant’s Motion to Vacate
Summary Judgment Order (Doc. No. 55) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court send a copy of this order
via regular and certified mail to Claimant at the following address: Larry Paul Goodyke,
429530-048, La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 3000, Anthony, NM
88021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 04/15/11
Kansas City, Missouri

/s/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge

2