Smith v. Young et al

Filing 248

ORDER denying 247 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 4/12/2021. (CLR) Modified on 4/12/2021 delivered to Plaintiff via USPS (CLR).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRUCE EDGAR SMITH,

4:16-CV-04014-LLP
Plaintiff,

vs.
SGT. KURTIS BROWN, Correctional Officer,
in his individual and official capacity, JESS
BOYSEN, Correctional Officer, in her
individual and official capacity, JUSTIN
KUKU, Correctional Officer, ANGELA
STEINEKE, Coordinator of West Hall, KEITH
DITMENSON, Unit Manager of West Hall,
HEATHER BOWERS, Head Nurse of Health
Service, MARY CARPENTER, Head Doctor for
Health Care, LONNA VINK, Nurse Health
Services, and DAVID STEPHAN, DCI,
Division of Criminal Investigation,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.
Plaintiff, Bruce Edgar Smith, filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Doc. 1. This Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and entered
judgment against Smith on September 27, 2018. Docs. 217, 218. On December 28, 2021, Smith
filed a motion for reconsideration, Doc. 247.
Rule 60(b) authorizes a court to relieve a party from a final judgment under the following
circumstances:
(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(e); (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)(1-6). Smith bases his motion on Rule 60(b)(1) and (3). Doc. 247 at 1.
However, these subsections may only be used in Rule 60(b) motions made “no more than a year
after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
The final judgment in this case was entered on September 27, 2018, thus, Smith’s pending motion,
which was filed more than two years since the date of judgment, is untimely under subsection (1)
and (3).
After review of his motion, the only possibly arguable ground is for “any other reason
that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). To obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a party must
show that “exceptional circumstances . . . denied the moving party a full and fair opportunity to
litigate his claim and . . . prevented the moving party from receiving adequate redress.” Harley v.
Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Rule 60(b) motions cannot be used
“to ‘tender new legal theories’ ” or to reargue “ ‘on the merits.’ ” Arnold v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc.,
627 F.3d 716, 721 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414
(8th Cir. 1988)) (first quoted material); Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir.
1999) (second quoted material).
Additionally, a Rule 60(b) motion “must be made within a reasonable time[.]” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(c)(1). “ ‘What constitutes a reasonable time is dependent on the particular facts of the case
in question and is reviewed for abuse of discretion.’ ” Middelton v. McDonald, 388 F.3d 614, 617
(8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Watkins v. Lundell, 169 F.3d 540, 544 (8th Cir. 1999)). The Eighth
Circuit has found a three-year delay in making a Rule 60(b) motion to be unreasonable. Id.; Nucor
Corp. v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist., 999 F.2d 372, 374-75 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding a three and onehalf year delay was unreasonable).
2

Smith filed his 60(b) motion almost two and a half years after the entry of judgment.
Compare Doc. 218 to Doc. 247. Further, his motion is based allegations of judicial misconduct
and he claims the Court did not consider his motion to introduce evidence (Doc. 131). Doc. 247 at
2. “[Y]ou told me that you would take a good long look” before ruling on Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment at “Doc. 131 . . . Did you? No[,] you didn’t.” Id. at 3. Smith claims that the
“proof” to deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment motion was within Doc. 131. Id. This
Court considered Doc. 131 and held:
A review of the record in this case shows that defendants also filed a copy of the
disciplinary report and a complete copy of the unplanned use of force checklist. See
Dockets 153-3, 153-6. Additionally, Smith has filed these documents with the court
on more than one occasion. See Dockets 1-5, 171. With no expressed opposition
from defendants, the documents are incorporated into the record of this case. Thus,
Smith's motion to admit evidence (Docket 131) is granted insofar as the evidence
is incorporated into the record of this case and the evidence would be considered
by the court in the context of the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Doc. 184 at 35. Smith has had the opportunity to litigate his claims before this Court. Smith filed
two motions for summary judgment (Docs. 194 and 214), which this Court considered and
denied. See Doc. 217 at 29-30. Next, Defendants brought a motion for summary judgment and
this Court analyzed Smith’s arguments and facts. See Doc. 217 at 30-46 (acknowledging that
Smith’s version of the events were different and holding that he did not raise a genuine issue of
material fact).
Smith has failed to allege facts to support that he was denied the opportunity to litigate
his claims, and he may not use a Rule 60(b) motion to relitigate the merits of his case. Thus,
Smith has failed to show an exceptional circumstance under Rule 60(b) and his motion for
reconsideration, Doc. 247, is denied.

3

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. That Smith’s motion for reconsideration, Doc. 247, is denied.
DATED April 12, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
ATTEST:
MATTHEW W. THELEN, CLERK

________________________________
Lawrence L. Piersol
United States District Judge

_________________________

4