Bower Lightfeather v. Choctan Nation et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion, the court concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated any legitimate reason for altering, amending, or otherwise obtaining any relief from the court's judgment of dismissal. He has not shown that the dismissal was the result of manifest error of law or fact, nor has he presented any "extraordinary circumstances" justifying relief. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(LKO)

8:22-cv-00105-RGK-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 05/10/22 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
AUSTIN EDWARD BOWER
LIGHTFEATHER,
8:22CV105
Plaintiff,
vs.

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

CHOCTAN NATION, and NATION OF
ISREAL,
Defendants.

On May 2, 2022, the court entered a final judgment dismissing this case
without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to prosecute it diligently and failed to
comply with this court’s orders. (Filings 5 & 6.) On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed an
untitled Motion and Supplement. (Filings 7 & 8.) Out of an abundance of caution,
the court will construe Plaintiff’s Motion as either as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or
amend judgment or as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment.1 See Sanders
v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 168 (8th Cir. 1988).
Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. United States v. Metro. St. Louis
Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006). 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. Id.

A Rule 59(e) motion “must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of
judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A Rule 60(b) motion “must be made within a
reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Plaintiff’s Motion is timely under either
rule.
1

8:22-cv-00105-RGK-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 05/10/22 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 24

Under Rule 60(b), a court may grant a party relief from a judgment for the
following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule
59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based
on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Relief under the catchall provision, Rule 60(b)(6), is available
only in “extraordinary circumstances.” Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 777-78 (2017)
(quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005)).
Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion, the court concludes that Plaintiff
has not demonstrated any legitimate reason for altering, amending, or otherwise
obtaining any relief from the court’s judgment of dismissal. He has not shown that
the dismissal was the result of manifest error of law or fact, nor has he presented any
“extraordinary circumstances” justifying relief.
DATED this 10th day of May, 2022.
BY THE COURT:

Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2