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)

Download PDF
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-

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?