Daugherty v. City of Lincoln et al

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment (Filing No. 65 ) is denied. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ARRMON H. DAUGHERTY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF LINCOLN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:10CV3111

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment
and Brief in Support of Motion. (Filing Nos. 65 and 66.) On March 29, 2012, the
court dismissed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and entered Judgment against him.
(Filing Nos. 63 and 64.) Specifically, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because it failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Filing No. 63.) Plaintiff seeks relief
from the court’s Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) based
on “excusable neglect.”
Rule 60(b)(1) permits a district court to grant relief from a judgment entered
because of a party’s excusable neglect. In re Guidant Corp. Implantable
Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, 496 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir. 2007).
Excusable neglect has two components: (1) neglect or noncompliance, and (2) that
is excusable. Id. The court considers four factors in assessing whether conduct is
excusable:
(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) the length of the
delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) whether the
movant acted in good faith; and (4) the reason for the delay, including
whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant.

Id. These four factors do not carry equal weight; the reason for delay is a key factor
in the analysis. Id. at 867.
Plaintiff’s basis for arguing excusable neglect is difficult to decipher. As best
as the court can tell, Plaintiff argues that he should be excused from judgment
because the court’s prior orders in this matter “led [him] to believe that his Amended
Complaint complied with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).” (Filing No. 66
at CM/ECF p. 2.) Thus, because the court led him to believe that his Amended
Complaint complied with Rule 8 pleading requirements, the court should not have
dismissed the Amended Complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 pleading
requirements. (Id.)
Plaintiff’s Motion lacks merit. The court dismissed Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint because it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, not
because Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 8 pleading requirements. Plaintiff has
not demonstrated excusable neglect, and his Motion will be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from
Judgment (Filing No. 65) is denied.
DATED this 9th day of May, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third
parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no
agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for
the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

2