Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01042/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01042-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dion Carpenter
Appellee
Citi Financial Auto
Appellee
John Does
Appellee
Doug Ericksen
Appellee
Ford Motor Company
Appellee
Hastings Automotive Inc.
Appellee
Inez Hunter
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1042

___________________________

Inez Hunter

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Ford Motor Company, in Dearborn MI; Citi Financial Auto, (“CFA”) a

corporation in Bedford, TX; Hastings Automotive Inc., (“HAI”), in Hastings, MN;

Dion Carpenter, an individual; Doug Ericksen, an individual; John Does, I through

X, sued in their individual and official capacities whose identities are not yet known

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: May 2, 2016

Filed: May 4, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 16-1042 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2016 Entry ID: 4395299 
Inez Hunter appeals after the District Court denied her motion for

1

postjudgment relief in this pro se action related to the purchase and financing of a car. 

We conclude that the motion was properly denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c) (time

limits for filing a motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure);

Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 620 F.3d 873, 879 (8th Cir. 2010)

(denying a Rule 60(d)(3) motion filed five years after judgment because the litigant

was not withoutfault and the rule has an “equitable requirement that the party seeking

relief be free from negligence and fault”); SDDS, Inc. v. South Dakota (In re SDDS,

Inc.), 225 F.3d 970, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding that a Rule 60(b) motion cannot “be

used to collaterally attack a final court of appeals’ ruling in lieu of a proper petition

for review in the United States Supreme Court”), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1007 (2001). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1042 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2016 Entry ID: 4395299