Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02833/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02833-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

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Elisabeth Conley, D.O.; Correctional * [UNPUBLISHED]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. 

Appellate Case: 09-2833 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2010 Entry ID: 3653525
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-

Appellate Case: 09-2833 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2010 Entry ID: 3653525