Marsh v. Noakes et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's motion to reopen case (Filing No. 11 ),construed as a motion for relief under Rule 60(b), is denied. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Filing No. 14 ) is denied as moot. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (AOA)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ANGELINE M. MARSH,
KARIN L. NOAKES, Custer
County District Court, JACK W.)
BESSE, VINCE DOWDING, GARY G. )
PETERSON, DAVE DAVIS, WINDY
THOME, GREGORY G. JENSEN,
JIM EBERLY, FARMER NATIONAL
COMPANY, and EVANGELICAL
LUTHERAN GOOD SAMARITAN
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion
to reopen case, which the Court liberally construes as a Motion
for Relief Under Rule 60(b) (Filing No. 11).
Along with her
motion, plaintiff has filed an amended complaint (Filing No. 12),
a supplement regarding the amended complaint (Filing No. 13) and
a motion for default judgment (Filing No. 14).
On July 12, 2011, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s
claims and entered judgment against her (Filing Nos. 8 and 9.)
Liberally construed, plaintiff seeks relief from the Court’s
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b)(6) (Filing No. 11).
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).
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,
amended complaint and supplement.
Plaintiff has not set forth
any “exceptional circumstances” that prevented her from fully
litigating her claims or receiving adequate redress.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to reopen case, construed as a
motion for relief under Rule 60(b), will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s motion to reopen case (Filing No. 11),
construed as a motion for relief under Rule 60(b), is denied.
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Filing
No. 14) is denied as moot.
DATED this 6th day of October, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court
* 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.
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?