Myron Hubbard v. Missouri Department of Mental, No. 16-1507 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Smith, Benton, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Title VI. District court properly concluded claims were barred by res judicata and Hubbard was not entitled to equitable exception to the doctrine, nor entitled to Rule 60 relief after judgment affirmed on appeal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1507 ___________________________ Myron Hubbard lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Missouri Department of Mental Health; St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center; Metropolitan St. Louis Psychiatric Center lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: October 20, 2016 Filed: October 24, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BENTON, and, SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Myron Hubbard appeals the dismissal of his Title VI action. jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. Having Following de novo review, this court finds the district court1 properly concluded Hubbard’s claims are barred by res judicata and that Hubbard was not entitled to an equitable exception to the doctrine. See Laase v. Cty. of Isanti, 638 F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of dismissal based on res judicata); Magee v. Hamline Univ., 775 F.3d 1057, 1059 (8th Cir. 2015) (listing res judicata factors); Walker v. Trinity Marine Products, Inc., 721 F.3d 542, 545 (8th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff invoking equitable estoppel must show she has changed position to her detriment in reasonable reliance on another’s misleading representation). Nor was Hubbard entitled to relief from the prior judgment, which was affirmed on appeal, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. See Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 620 F.3d 873, 878 (8th Cir. 2010) (Rule 60(d)(3) relief is extraordinary form of relief, and is available only when it would be unconscionable to allow judgment to stand); In re SDDS, Inc., 225 F.3d 970, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used to collaterally attack court of appeals ruling in lieu of petition for review in United States Supreme Court). The judgment is affirmed. The pending motions are denied as moot. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -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.
