Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01507/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01507-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Myron Hubbard
Appellant
Metropolitan St. Louis Psychiatric Center
Appellee
Missouri Department of Mental Health
Appellee
St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center
Appellee

Document Text:

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[Unpublished]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. Having

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 

Appellate Case: 16-1507 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2016 Entry ID: 4461747 
Following de novo review, this court finds the district court properly

1

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.

______________________________

The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1507 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2016 Entry ID: 4461747