Buholtz v. Carroll et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 08/07/2017. (mailed copy to pro se plaintiff) (nbrow)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

~-~
~

L

~ijl

AUG - 8 2Dll

J

,_____---=---=--..

KENNETH LEO BUHOLTZ
Plaintiff,
v.

BART CARROLL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1lblJ

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND, VA

Civil Action No. 3:15CV520-HEH

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Denying Rule 60(b)(6) Motion)

By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on January 15, 2016, the Court
dismissed Kenneth Leo Buholtz's civil action forJailure 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). By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on June 29, 2017, the
Court denied Buholtz's motion to set aside judgment filed pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). (See ECF Nos. 29, 30.) On July 14, 2017, the Court received a
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b )( 6) ("Rule 60(b)( 6) Motion," ECF No. 31) 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'l 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, 731F.2d204,
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)(6), 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)(6) 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
2

months after the original judgment and no valid reason is given for the delay." (citing

Cent. Operating Co. v. Util. 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)(6) Motion (ECF No. 31) will be denied.

An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

~

Isl

HENRY E. HUDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: A"-tfl.31 '1 2.0/'l
Richmond, Virgihia

3