Collum v. PayPal et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial (filing no. 29 ) 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,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAYPAL, and KELLIE CAIN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV17

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial. (Filing No.
29.) The court dismissed this matter and entered Judgment against Plaintiff on May
16, 2012. (Filing Nos. 18 and 19.) Plaintiff’s latest Motion is his fourth attempt to
reopen this matter. (See Filing Nos. 22, 24, 27, and 29.)
Liberally construed, Plaintiff seeks relief from the court’s Judgment pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b)(6). (Filing No. 29.) 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. 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 New Trial is
denied. The court warns Plaintiff that if he continues to file meritless motions, he may
be subject to sanctions, including, but not limited to, being enjoined from filing any

further pleadings, motions, or other items related to his claims against PayPal without
prior authorization from this court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial (filing
no. 29) is denied.
DATED this 9 th day of October, 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