Christopher Prosser v. Govinarajulu Nagaldinne, et al, No. 09-2833 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case. Denial of Rule 60(b) affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-2833 ___________ Christopher Lee Prosser, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Laurain C. Hendricks, Doctor, M.D.; * Elisabeth Conley, D.O.; Correctional * [UNPUBLISHED] Medical Services, Inc.; Larry Crawford; * Al Luebbers; Govinarajulu * Nagaldinne, M.D., Doctor, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: March 25, 2010 Filed: April 12, 2010 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Inmate Christopher Prosser appeals an order of the District Court1 denying his motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that sought relief from two orders of the court: a May 2008 order granting two defendants' 1 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United Stated District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. motion to dismiss, and a January 2009 order granting Prosser's motion to voluntarily dismiss the remaining defendants without prejudice. We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion, see MIF Realty L.P. v. Rochester Assocs., 92 F.3d 752, 755 (8th Cir. 1996), and we find no abuse of discretion in this case. As to the May 2008 dismissal order, Prosser sought Rule 60(b) relief by challenging the substantive basis for the dismissal, but this challenge should have been raised in a direct appeal of that order. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 170 (8th Cir. 1988). As to the January 2009 voluntary dismissal, Prosser did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting relief from the consequences of his own motion, see Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 975 (2001), and we note that he is free to refile his claims against the voluntarily dismissed defendants if he so wishes. Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny the pending motions. ______________________________ -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.
