Collum v. PayPal et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen (filing no. 20 ), liberally construed as a Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b), is denied. Plaintiff's Motion to Continue (filing no. 21 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy e-mailed to pro se party) (AOA)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BRIAN T. COLLUM,
PAYPAL, and KELLIE CAIN,
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen, which the court
liberally construes as a Motion for Relief Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b). (Filing No. 20.) Also pending is Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue. (Filing No.
On May 16, 2012, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint and entered
Judgment against him. (Filing Nos. 18 and 19.) Liberally construed, Plaintiff seeks
relief from the court’s Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b)(6). (Filing No.
20.) 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 to Reopen. Plaintiff has not
set forth any “exceptional circumstances” that prevented him from fully litigating his
claims or receiving adequate redress. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen,
liberally construed as a Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b), is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (filing no. 20), liberally construed as a
Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b), is denied.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue (filing no. 21) is denied.
DATED this 22 nd day of June, 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.
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?