Behrens v. Chase Home Finance
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 23 Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHASE HOME FINANCE,
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen, which the court
liberally construes as a Motion for Relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). (Filing
No. 23.) For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is denied.
On June 3, 2013, the court dismissed the matter because Plaintiff failed to
comply with this court’s orders and pay the court-ordered initial partial filing fee.
(Filing Nos. 21 and 22.) On June 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen. (Filing
No. 23.) In his Motion, Plaintiff seeks to set aside the court’s June 3, 2013, Order and
Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). (Id.) Defendant has filed a Brief in Opposition.
(Filing No. 24.)
“Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors
of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence . . . . Such motions cannot be
used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which
could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.” U.S. v. Metro. St. Louis
Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal citations and quotations
The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion and finds that he is not
entitled to relief under Rule 59(e). Plaintiff argues he has no control of the money
paid to the court and offers a copy of his account statement showing an “Initial PLRA
Pymt” of $18.73 on April 17, 2013. (Filing No. 23 at CM/ECF pp. 1-2.) However,
Plaintiff had two court-ordered initial partial filing fees of $18.73 pending on April
17, 2013. (See Filing No. 17; Case No. 8:13CV72, Filing No. 13.) Plaintiff’s “Initial
PLRA Pymt” of $18.73 was applied to Case No. 8:13CV72 (see Docket Sheet, Case
No. 8:13CV72), and Plaintiff has not shown, nor does the record show, that he
authorized his institution to collect any initial partial payment for this matter.
Moreover, on April 18, 2013, the court gave Plaintiff additional time to pay his initial
partial filing fee in this matter and he failed to do so. (Filing No. 17; see also Docket
Sheet.) Pro se litigants are not excused from complying with court orders. See, e.g.,
Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 Fed. App’x. 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008)
(concluding district court did not clearly err in dismissing case where pro se plaintiff
failed to prosecute her case and failed to comply with court orders). Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (filing no.
23) is denied.
DATED this 9th day of July, 2013.
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.
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?