United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southern Division
MICHAEL H. LIND, et al., Plaintiffs,
LINDA T. MCKINNEY, et al., Defendants.
STEPHEN R. BOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Judgment. (Doc.
#149). The motion is DENIED.
se Plaintiffs Michael Lind and Mary Lind ask the Court
to grant them relief from the summary judgment orders this
Court entered in Defendants' favor and to grant them
relief from the subsequent Judgment. Plaintiffs state their
motion to vacate is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b). (Doc. #149, p. 1). Rule 60(b) provides:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or
its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding 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;
or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
do not identify on which Rule 60(b) subpart their motion is
based. The Court construes Plaintiffs' motion as based on
either Rule 60(b)(1) or Rule 60(b)(6). Neither provision
entitles Plaintiffs to relief from the summary judgment
orders or Judgment in this case.
argue the Court erred in its summary judgment orders and
subsequent Judgment by not ruling on the constitutionality of
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.084. Plaintiffs argue,
“Neither the Orders (Docs. #142 and #143) of this Court
granting the motions for summary judgment by Defendants nor
the CLERK'S JUDGMENT (Doc. #144) make any reference
whatsoever to either Plaintiffs' challenge of the
constitutionality of RSMo §565.084 or the part of RSMo
§565.084 that is being challenged.” (Doc. #149,
¶ 15). Plaintiffs further argue, “No ruling and
Order or final Judgment entered in this case by this Court
has held the above referenced part of RSMo §565.084,
which is challenged by Plaintiffs to be either constitutional
or unconstitutional.” (Doc. # 149, ¶ 16).
Plaintiffs admit that in this litigation they first raised
the issue of § 565.084's constitutionality in their
oppositions to the two summary judgment motions. (Doc. #149,
¶ 7). Neither Plaintiffs' original nor amended
complaint called into question § 565.084's
60(b) provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted
only upon an adequate showing of exceptional
circumstances.” Harley v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d
866, 870 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). The Eighth Circuit “has not allowed
relief under Rule 60(b)(1) for judicial error other than for
judicial inadvertence.” Fox v. Brewer, 620
F.2d 177, 180 (8th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted). A claimed
error in a court's legal analysis and legal conclusions
is not redressable under Rule 60(b)(1). See Sanders v.
Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169-70 (8th Cir. 1988).
“Relief is available under Rule 60(b)(6) only where
exceptional circumstances have denied the moving party a full
and fair opportunity to litigate his claim and have prevented
the moving party from receiving adequate redress.”
Harley, 413 F.3d at 871 (citation omitted).
Court's summary judgment orders were primarily based on
findings that Defendants were entitled to various immunity
protections. The Court's summary judgment orders did not
specifically address Plaintiffs' constitutionality
argument, which again was raised for the first time in
Plaintiffs' briefs in opposition to the motions for
summary judgment, but Plaintiffs did not then and have not
now identified for the Court how a present declaration of
§ 565.084's constitutionality would impact an
immunity analysis that is based on conduct and circumstances
that occurred in the past. The Court thoroughly considered
all the parties' briefing including Plaintiffs'
constitutionality argument in issuing its summary judgment
orders. Plaintiffs' claimed error that the Court did not
decide whether § 565.084 is constitutional is based on
the Court's legal analysis and is not based on judicial
inadvertence. Plaintiffs' claimed error, therefore, is
not redressable under Rule 60(b)(1).
claimed error is also not redressable under Rule 60(b)(6).
Plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to litigate ...