Robert Belt v. Michelle Boyd , 278 F. App'x 698 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-1728
    ___________
    Robert Belt,                             *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * District of South Dakota.
    Michelle Boyd, Warden, Minnehaha         *
    County Jail; Helen Kellen; June Odens; * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Lt. Devlin; Sgt. Arntz; C.O. Carlson;    *
    Randy DeRaad, Med Staff, all in their *
    official and individual capacities,      *
    *
    Appellees.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 16, 2008
    Filed: May 20, 2008
    ___________
    Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Federal inmate Robert Belt appeals the district court’s1 denial of relief under
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) following the adverse grant of summary
    judgment in his civil rights action. While Belt did not specify a listed ground for
    relief, it appears he was asserting that the judgment was void under Rule 60(b)(4).
    1
    The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the
    District of South Dakota.
    See Baldwin v. Credit Based Asset Servicing & Securitization, 
    516 F.3d 734
    , 737 (8th
    Cir. 2008) (judgment is void if, inter alia, rendering court lacked jurisdiction); Hunter
    v. Underwood, 
    362 F.3d 468
    , 475 (8th Cir. 2004) (Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary
    remedy that lies within discretion of trial court, but relief from void judgment under
    Rule 60(b)(4) is not discretionary). We conclude, for the reasons stated by the district
    court, that the judgment was not void. See 
    Hunter, 362 F.3d at 475
    (Rule 60(b)(4)
    motion based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction will succeed only if absence of
    jurisdiction was so obvious as to constitute total lack of jurisdiction or plain
    usurpation of power so that judgment was void at its inception; noting appellant did
    not appeal decision from which she sought Rule 60(b) relief, and instead employed
    motion as substitute for appeal that she never filed).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-1728

Citation Numbers: 278 F. App'x 698

Filed Date: 5/20/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023