Donald Alexander v. Boone Hospital Center, No. 12-1157 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. District court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1964(c) claim; District Court for the District of Minnesota retained jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's Rule 60 motion.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1157 ___________________________ Donald K. Alexander lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Boone Hospital Center; William A. Hawkins; Susan Alpert; Kathleen Erickson DiGiorno; Stephen N. Oesterle; Gary Ellis; Brian Rysdam; Medtronic, Inc.; Daniel Rothery; Missy Arnold; Nancy Tune lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ___________________________ No. 12-1298 ___________________________ Donald K. Alexander lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. William A. Hawkins; Susan Alpert; Kathleen Erickson DiGiorno; Stephen Oesterle; Gary Ellis; Brian Rysdam; and Medtronic, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: June 28, 2012 Filed: November 5, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Donald Alexander filed a civil action in the Western District of Missouri seeking damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The case was transferred to the District of Minnesota, which was presiding over related multidistrict litigation. The District of Minnesota1 severed and dismissed some defendants from the action based on a settlement between the parties. The claims against the remaining defendants were remanded to the Western District of Missouri,2 which ultimately granted the remaining defendants motion to dismiss. Alexander filed in both courts motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside the settlement-based dismissal. The Western District of Missouri declined to rule on the motion; the District of Minnesota denied it on the merits. In these consolidated appeals, Alexander challenges the Western District of Missouri s dismissal, and argues that only the Western District of Missouri, not the District of Minnesota, had jurisdiction to rule on his Rule 60 motion. 1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- We agree with the Western District of Missouri that Alexander s section 1964(c) claim failed for the reasons stated by that court. We also conclude the District of Minnesota retained jurisdiction to consider his Rule 60 motion, and thus the Western District of Missouri did not err by declining to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a); J.P.M.L. R. 10.1(a). Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district courts. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -3-
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.
