Herzog v. Gibbs/Gibson
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (filing no. 34 ), liberally construed as a Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b), is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (TEL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ANDREW A. HERZOG, Alleged
mentally ill and dangerous person.
Charged with 3 rd degree assault by
Norfolk Regional Center Mental
Health Institution,
Plaintiff,
v.
BILL GIBBS/GIBSON, CEO of the
Norfolk Regional Center Mental
Health Institution charging plaintiff
with 3 rd degree assault,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
8:09CV70
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, which
the court liberally construes as a Motion for Relief Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b). (Filing No. 34.) Along with his Motion, Plaintiff has filed a Brief
in Support. (Filing No. 35.)
On January 26, 2010, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint and entered
Judgment against him. (Filing Nos. 26 and 27.) Liberally construed, Plaintiff seeks
relief from the court’s Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b)(6). Rule 60(b)(6)
“grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment ‘upon
such terms as are just,’ provided that the motion is made within a reasonable time and
is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through
(b)(5).” Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988).
However, “[r]elief is available under Rule 60(b)(6) only where exceptional
circumstances have denied the moving party a full and fair opportunity to litigate his
claim and have prevented the moving party from receiving adequate redress.” Harley
v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir. 2005).
The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion and Brief. Plaintiff has not
set forth any “exceptional circumstances” that prevented him from fully litigating his
claims or receiving adequate redress.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
(filing no. 34), liberally construed as a Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b), is denied.
DATED this 1 st day of May, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?