United States District Court, D. Nebraska
ERIC M. ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
THE LANCASTER COUNTY COURT, Court Rep. for State of Neb; THE LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, Court Rep. for State of Neb.; NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, Court Rep. for the State of Neb.; and THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT, Court Rep. for the State of Neb; Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge
matter is before the court on Plaintiff Eric M.
Robinson's (“Plaintiff” or
“Robinson”) Motion for Reconsideration (filing
no. 32) and Motion for Supplemental Filing (filing no. 34).
The court grants Robinson's Motion for Supplemental
Filing to the extent it will be considered part of his motion
for reconsideration along with the other supplemental
materials he filed. (See Filing Nos. 33 &
Robinson filed an identical motion and supplemental materials
in his related, closed case at No. 8:18CV73, and the court
denied him relief from the court's judgment.
(See Filing No. 44, No. 8:18CV73.) The court reaches
the same conclusion here.
Robinson has not indicated which provision of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure he is relying upon in making his
motion for reconsideration, it may be treated either as a
Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment or as a Rule
60(b) motion for relief from judgment. See Sanders
v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 168 (8th Cir. 1988). But
whichever rule is applied, the motion fails.
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.
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;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
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)).
Robinson asks the court to reconsider its Memorandum and
Order and Judgment (filing nos. 30 & 31) entered on March
14, 2019, dismissing Robinson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Complaint (filing no. 1) without prejudice because, inter
alia and as best the court can determine, the court
failed to consider all the materials filed in support of the
Complaint, failed to liberally construe Robinson's
pleadings, and generally failed to give adequate
consideration to Robinson's claims. The court is unmoved
by Robinson's arguments but will address some which
warrant further comment.
takes issue with the court's characterization of his
pleadings as full of “ramblings, frustrations, and
commentary” and asserts that the court misused Rule 8
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to avoid giving his
pleadings the proper liberal construction due to pro se
litigants' pleadings. (See, e.g., Filing No. 33
at CM/ECF pp. 17-20.) The court addressed this argument in
ruling on Robinson's motion filed in No. 8:18CV73 and
reiterates that the court has done its best in liberally
construing Robinson's Complaint and supplemental
pleadings, but liberal construction can only go so far.
Moreover, the court's obligation to liberally construe
Robinson's pleadings does not relieve him from compliance
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 8.
See NEGenR 1.3(g) (pro se litigants are “bound
by and must comply with all local and federal procedural
rules”); Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, ...