Stroh v. Valley Behavioral Health

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 14 Motion Motion to Delay (stay) Enforcement of Judgment; denying 15 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 6/22/20. (alf)

FILED
2020 JUN 22 PM 1:17
CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Shane Stroh,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS

v.
Case No. 2:19-cv-00272-DBP
Valley Behavioral Health,
Defendant.

Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Shane Stroh’s Motion to Delay (stay)
Enforcement of Judgment (ECF No. 14.) and Motion to Remand to State Court Third District.
(ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff is acting pro se so the court construes his pleadings liberally. 1 The court
will deny the motions.
This case was dismissed with prejudice by the parties May 16, 2019. (ECF No. 13.) Over
a year later on June 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Delay (stay) Enforcement of Judgment.
Plaintiff asserts there is “newly discovered evidence” from the “HHS/Office for Civil Rights that
was not available until early this month via email.” (ECF No. 14 p. 1.) Plaintiff points to Federal
Rule 60(b) as a basis to grant relief from judgment.
Rule 60(c) provides that a “motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable
time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) 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). Plaintiff cites to new evidence which
falls within subsection (2) and also cites to subsection (6) that provides “any other reason that

1

The court construes a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally and holds them to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).

justifies relief.” The court finds the delay in filing the 60(b) motion is unreasonable as it is more
than a year after this case was dismissed.
“Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and may only be granted in exceptional
circumstances.” Zurich N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., Inc., 426 F.3d 1281, 1293 (10th Cir. 2005). “In
order to grant a Rule 60(b) motion the district court must make two distinct findings: ‘a
justification for relief [under one of the clauses of the rule] and a meritorious defense.’” Mullin v.
High Mountain, 182 F. App'x 830, 833 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Olson v. Stone (In re Stone),
588 F.2d 1316, 1319 (10th Cir. 1978)). Plaintiff fails to offer justification for the relief sought.
“[A] party seeking to establish [a justification for relief] must plead and prove it.” Id. (citation
and quotations omitted). Even under a liberal reading of Plaintiff’s pleadings, Plaintiff has failed
to meet this standard.
In similar fashion, the court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Case to Third District
Court. This case was closed over a year ago and there is no basis to transfer it now to another
court, including the court where it was allegedly originally filed.
Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 22 June 2020.

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

2