Collum v. PayPal

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing (Filing No. 16 ), liberally construed as a Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b), is denied. The clerk of the court shall not accept further filings from plaintiff in this matter except for a notice of appeal. Any future case proposed to be filed in this Court by plaintiff shall be referred to the Supervising Pro Se Judge, Richard G. Kopf, or his successor, for review before filing, and the clerk of the court is directed not to file any such case until this review has been completed. The Supervising Pro Se Judge shall review any such tendered complaint and if it fails to comply with this Memorandum and Order and applicable law it shall be returned to plaintiff without filing. A rec ord of any such submission and return shall be maintained by the clerk in the CM/ECF system under the "PS" designation or as otherwise directed by the Supervising Pro Se Judge. 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 Motion
for Hearing, liberally construed as a Motion for Relief Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(Filing No. 16).

This

motion is plaintiff’s fourth attempt to reopen this case.

(See

Filing Nos. 10, 12, 14, and 16.)
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. 16).
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 Hearing,

liberally construed as a Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b), will
be denied.
On October 5, 2012, the Court warned plaintiff that if
he continued to file meritless motions, he could 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 (Filing No. 15).

Plaintiff has ignored this warning and

has continued to file meritless motions.

(See Filing No. 16; see

also Case No. 8:12CV17, Filing No. 32.)
The Eighth Circuit has held that litigants who have
abused the judicial system may be enjoined from filing future
litigation.

See In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1292 (8th Cir. 1988)

(recognizing that there is “no constitutional right of access to
the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious”
and that “[f]rivolous, bad faith claims consume a significant
amount of judicial resources, diverting the time and energy of

-2-

the judiciary away from processing good faith claims” (citations
omitted)).

Indeed, “[t]he Court may, in its discretion, place

reasonable restrictions on any litigant who files non-meritorious
actions for obviously malicious purposes and who generally abuses
judicial process.”

Id. (citations omitted).

In the interest of curbing plaintiff’s litigation
abuses, the Court takes it upon itself to address plaintiff’s
abuses and impose appropriate sanctions.

The clerk of the court

will be directed to accept no further filings from plaintiff in
this matter, except for a notice of appeal.

To prevent further

abuse, plaintiff will no longer be permitted to file a complaint
in this Court and proceed IFP without first seeking leave to do
so. If plaintiff proposes to file a complaint and proceed IFP,
but the complaint lacks a legal basis or is otherwise meritless,
the Court will direct the clerk of the court to return the
proposed complaint to plaintiff without filing it, as set forth
below.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing (Filing No. 16),

liberally construed as a Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b), is
denied.
2.

The clerk of the court shall not accept further

filings from plaintiff in this matter except for a notice of
appeal.

-3-

3.

Any future case proposed to be filed in this Court

by plaintiff shall be referred to the Supervising Pro Se Judge,
Richard G. Kopf, or his successor, for review before filing, and
the clerk of the court is directed not to file any such case
until this review has been completed.

The Supervising Pro Se

Judge shall review any such tendered complaint and if it fails to
comply with this Memorandum and Order and applicable law it shall
be returned to plaintiff without filing.

A record of any such

submission and return shall be maintained by the clerk in the
CM/ECF system under the “PS” designation or as otherwise directed
by the Supervising Pro Se Judge.
DATED this 20th day of November, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

*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.
-4-