Collum v. PayPal

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's motion to reopen (Filing No. 10 ) and amended motion to reopen case (Filing No. 12 ), liberally construed as a motion for relief under Rule 60(b), are denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy e-mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BRIAN T. COLLUM,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAYPAL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV153

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s amended
motion to reopen case, which the Court liberally construes as a
motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)1
(Filing No. 12).
On August 14, 2012, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s
complaint and entered judgment against him (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. 12).
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

1

Plaintiff previously filed a motion to reopen case that
was deficient because he failed to sign it (Filing Nos. 10 and
11).

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 amended motion to

reopen case, liberally construed as a motion for relief under
Rule 60(b), is denied.2
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen (Filing
No. 10) and amended motion to reopen case (Filing No. 12),
liberally construed as a motion for relief under Rule 60(b), are
denied.
DATED this 29th day of August, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

2

Plaintiff states that he wants his case to be reviewed by
a new judge (Filing No. 12). To the extent that plaintiff is
asking the Court to reassign this case, his motion is also
denied.
-2-

* 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.
-3-