Buholtz v. Carroll et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 06/29/2017. (mailed copy to pro se Plaintiff) (nbrow)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
KENNETH LEO BUHOLTZ
··JU-N -·- · ·--/ ! !j1
2 9 2017 1L::J
Civil Action No. 3:15CV520-HEH
BART CARROLL, et al.,
CLERK, U.S. DISTi~ICT COURT
(Denying Rule 60(b)(4) Motion)
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on January 15, 2016, the Court
dismissed Kenneth Leo Buholtz's civil action for failure to state a claim and as legally
frivolous. Buholtz v. Carroll, No. 3:15CV520, 2016 WL 204474, at *3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 15,
2016). By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on March 14, 2016, the Court
denied Buholtz's motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). Buholtz v. Carroll, No. 3:15CV520, 2016 WL 1064542, at *2 (E.D. Va.
Mar. 14, 2016). On May 30, 2017, the Court received a Motion to Set Aside Judgment
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) ("Rule 60(b)(4) Motion," ECF
No. 28) from Buholtz.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a court to "relieve a party ... from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). It is an extraordinary
remedy requiring a showing of exceptional circumstances. Mayfield v. Nat'! Ass 'nfor
Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing Ackermann v.
United States, 340 U.S. 193, 202 (1950)). The party seeking relief under Rule 60(b)
"must make a threshold showing of timeliness, 'a meritorious claim or defense,' and lack
of unfair prejudice to the opposing party .... " Coleman v. Jabe, 633 F. App'x 119, 120
(4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011)). A party
must also demonstrate "exceptional circumstances." Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting Werner v. Carbo, 731 F.2d 204,
207 (4th Cir. 1984)). After a party satisfies this threshold showing, "he [or she] then
must satisfy one of the six specific sections ofRule 60(b)." Id. (quoting Werner, 731
F .2d at 207).
Here, Buholtz seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(4), hence, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(c)(l), he was required to file his motion within a reasonable time after the
entry of the January 15, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(l)
("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."). Buholtz's Rule 60(b)(4) Motion, filed more than one year after the entry
of the challenged judgment, was not filed in a reasonable time. See Mclawhorn v. John
W. Daniel & Co., Inc., 924 F.2d 535, 538 (4th Cir. 1991) ("We have held on several
occasions that a Rule 60(b) motion is not timely brought when it is made three to four
months after the original judgment and no valid reason is given for the delay." (citing
Cent. Operating Co. v. Utility Workers ofAm., 491F.2d245 (4th Cir. 1974); Consol.
Masonry & Fireproofing, Inc. v. Wagman Constr. Corp., 383 F.2d 249 (4th Cir. 1967))).
For this reason, Buholtz's Rule 60(b)(4) Motion (ECF No. 28) will be denied.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
HENRY E. HUDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: Jvnc.. 2.ct 20/'l
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?