Carper v. State of Nebraska et al.

Filing 23

ORDER - The plaintiff's Motions in Support for Reconsideration (Filing Nos. 19 and 21 ) are denied. Any objection to this Order shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

JULIE L. CARPER,
Plaintiff,

4:14CV3060

vs.
ORDER
STATE OF NEBRASKA and
MICHAEL G. HEAVICAN, Honorable
Chief Justice, Nebraska Supreme
Court,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on the pro se plaintiff’s Motions in Support for
Reconsideration (Filing Nos. 19 and 21). The plaintiff filed briefs (Filing Nos. 20 and 22)
in support of the motions.

The court previously denied the plaintiff’s Motion for

Stipulation for Quick Resolution. See Filing No. 18 - Order. The court noted the relief
the plaintiff sought, while unclear, was unavailable.

Id.

The plaintiff seeks

reconsideration of her motion; however, her motions for reconsideration are similarly
unclear.
To the extent the plaintiff’s motion is a motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60, reconsideration is appropriate where the movant shows entitlement to
relief under at least one of the following conditions:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to
move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void,
(5) the judgment has been satisfied . . .; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “[R]elief under rule 60(b)(6) remains ‘an extraordinary remedy’ for
‘exceptional circumstances.’” City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa, 702 F.3d 1147, 1155 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing In re Zimmerman, 869 F.2d
1126, 1128 (8th Cir. 1989) (“Such relief is to be granted only when exceptional

circumstances prevented the moving party from seeking redress through the usual
channels.”)).
The court has reviewed the plaintiff’s initial motion, motions for reconsideration,
and the briefs in support of the motions. The plaintiff has not shown relief is warranted
under any section of Rule 60(b). For the reasons explained in the court’s prior order,
the court will not compel any discovery and cannot compel removal of a case to federal
court. See Filing No. 18 - Order. Additionally, the plaintiff appears to make arguments
against the defendant’s pending motion to dismiss. The plaintiff previously made the
same arguments in opposition to the motion to dismiss and does not need to repeat the
arguments. See Filing No. 8 - Motion to Deny Dismissal; Filing No. 9 - Brief in Support
of Motion to Deny Dismissal. Regardless, the plaintiff may not use a Rule 60(b) motion
to raise new arguments, if any, which her prior motion did not address. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:
The plaintiff’s Motions in Support for Reconsideration (Filing Nos. 19 and 21) are
denied.

ADMONITION
Pursuant to NECivR 72.2 any objection to this Order shall be filed with the Clerk
of the Court within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Order.
Failure to timely object may constitute a waiver of any objection. The brief in support of
any objection shall be filed at the time of filing such objection. Failure to file a brief in
support of any objection may be deemed an abandonment of the objection.

Dated this 11th day of July, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge

2