Collum v. PayPal

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Reopen Case (Filing No. 14 ) is 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)
(Filing No. 14).
reopen this case.

This motion is plaintiff’s third attempt to
(See Filing Nos. 10, 12, and 14.)

On August 14, 2012, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s
complaint and entered judgment against him (Filing Nos. 8 and 9).
Plaintiff seeks relief from the Court’s judgment pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. Pro. 60(b)(6) (Filing No. 14).

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 Amended Motion to

Reopen Case, liberally construed as a Motion for Relief Under
Rule 60(b), will be 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 ORDERED that plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Reopen
Case (Filing No. 14) is denied.
DATED this 5th day of October, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-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-