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)

Download PDF
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

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?