Anne Sanders, et al v. HHS, et al, No. 12-30634 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-30634 Document: 00512116787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-30634 Summary Calendar January 17, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ANNE B. SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant AQUATIC REHAB, L.L.C., Appellant v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; PINNACLE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED; USABLE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, doing business as Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield; ADVANCEMED CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:10-cv-00172-EEF Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Proceeding pro se, Anne Sanders filed suit against the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and three Medicare contractors for their * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 12-30634 Document: 00512116787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2013 No. 12-30634 alleged failure to process properly and reimburse her Medicare claims. The district court found that the contractors were entitled to derivative sovereign immunity and that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Sanders s claim against the DHHS. The court dismissed her claims. Sanders then obtained counsel. Through counsel, she sought relief from the district court s judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That Rule provides, in pertinent part, that [o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. 1 Implicit in the fact that Rule 60(b)(1) affords extraordinary relief is the requirement that the movant make a sufficient showing of unusual or unique circumstances justifying such relief. 2 Sanders argued, in essence, that her former status as a pro se litigant resulted in errors that entitle her to relief. The district court disagreed, as do we. For essentially the reasons stated by Judge Fallon in his order of February 6, 2012, we AFFIRM. 1 FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1). 2 Pryor v. U.S. Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 1985). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
