United States District Court, D. Nebraska
ERIC M. ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
STATE OF NEBRASKA, Defendant.
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. 39), Motion for Supplemental Filing (filing no. 41), and
what the court construes as a motion for status (filing no.
43). Robinson's motion for status is granted. The court
now reviews Robinson's Motion for Reconsideration and
will consider his Motion for Supplemental Filing and the
other supplemental materials he filed as part of the motion.
(See Filing Nos. 40 & 42.)
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.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 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.
Robinson asks the court to reconsider its Memorandum and
Order and Judgment (filing nos. 37 & 38) entered on March
14, 2019, dismissing Robinson's Complaint (filing no. 1)
without prejudice because, inter alia and as best
the court can determine, the court erred in treating
Robinson's Complaint as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action,
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 those which
warrant further comment.
Robinson 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. 40
at CM/ECF pp. 17-20.) Robinson contends that the court failed
to give a “full statement of his claim, ” (filing
no. 39 at CM/ECF p. 11), but if the court has failed to do so
it is because the court cannot understand Robinson's
statement of his claim as his pleadings are prolix,
disjointed, and lacking in rational organization and
comprehensibility. 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,
no matter what type of civil action Robinson files be it a
§ 1983 action, special fraud proceeding, habeas, or
other civil action. See NEGenR 1.3(g) (pro se
litigants are “bound by and must comply with all ...