Griffin v. Schmaderer et al

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 61 Motion to Amend; denying 62 Motion to Amend. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ARTHUR JAMES GRIFFIN JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TODD SCHMADERER, Omaha
Police Chief, MIKE MYERS,
Director, and DOUGLAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:13CV88

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO
AMEND

This matter is before me on the plaintiff’s Motions to Amend. (Filing No. 61
and 62.) For the reasons discussed below, the plaintiff’s motions are denied.
On May 28, 2013, I dismissed this civil case and entered judgment against the
plaintiff, Arthur James Griffin Jr. (“Griffin’), for failing to comply with my orders.
(Filing Nos. 41 and 42.) Thereafter, Griffin filed, and I denied, five Motions to
Modify. (See Filing No. 47.) Griffin continues to file motions, most of which contain
rambling narrations of fact, conclusory legal assertions, and long lists of citations.
(Filing Nos. 48, 49, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, and 59.) In addition, Griffin continues to file
notices and requests with newspaper clippings and copies of disciplinary misconduct
reports from his institution. (See, e.g., Filing Nos. 51 and 53.)
When very liberally construed, Griffin may be seeking relief from my judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b)(6). (See Filing Nos. 61 and 62.) 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).
Griffin’s motions have been carefully reviewed and I find that he is not
entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). Moreover, I previously warned Griffin 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 this matter without prior authorization from this court. (Filing No.
63.) Because Griffin filed his current motions before receiving my warning, I will not
sanction Griffin at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Griffin’s Motions to Amend (filing nos.
61 and 62), liberally construed as Motions for Relief Under Rule 60(b), are denied.
Dated July 11, 2013.
BY THE COURT

____________________________________________
Warren K. Urbom
United States Senior 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.
2