1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JAKE TAYLER JACOBS, §

Plaintiff, §

§

 v. § No. 3:22-cv-00313-K (BT)

§

TRANSUNION LLC, §

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Jake Tayler Jacobs’s “Notice of Motion to 

Reopen Case” under Rule 60(b). (ECF No. 8.) For the reasons stated, the 

Court should deny Jacobs’s motion.

I. 

Jacobs initiated this pro se lawsuit on February 8, 2022, when he 

filed a complaint. Compl. (ECF No. 3). The next day, the Court issued a 

Notice of Deficiency and Order, directing Jacobs to file his complaint in 

compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), pay the filing fee or 

file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and file his pleadings 

on the court-approved form. (ECF No. 4.) The Order further informed 

Jacobs that failure to respond and cure the deficiencies by March 9 could 

result in a recommendation that his case be dismissed. Jacobs did not 

respond, and he failed to comply with the Court’s February 9 Order. 

On March 11, the undersigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

conclusions, recommending that Jacobs’s case be dismissed without 

Case 3:22-cv-00313-K-BT Document 9 Filed 02/16/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 38
2

prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). FCR (ECF No. 5). 

Jacobs did not file objections, and on March 30, the Court accepted the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation and entered judgment. Ord. (ECF No. 

6); J. (ECF No. 7). Then, on December 2, 2022 Jacobs filed his “Notice of 

Motion to Reopen Case” under Rule 60(b). (ECF No. 8.) 

II. 

A court evaluates a motion seeking reconsideration of a prior ruling 

under either Rule 59(e) or under Rule 60(b). Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, 

Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2012). The Court determines which rule 

to apply based on when the motion is filed. Id. If the party files his motion 

within twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment, the Court evaluates the 

motion under Rule 59, but if the party filed it beyond that time period, the 

Court analyzes the motion under Rule 60. Id. Jacobs filed his motion on 

December 2, 2022, which is more than 28 days after the entry of judgment. 

The Court therefore evaluates his motion under Rule 60(b). 

Under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment or 

order for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable 

diligence, could not have been discovered in time to 

move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing 

party;

Case 3:22-cv-00313-K-BT Document 9 Filed 02/16/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 39
3

(4) the judgment is void; 

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or 

discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has 

been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is 

no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Relief under Rule 60(b) is considered an extraordinary 

remedy, and the need for predictability mandates caution in reopening 

judgments. In re Pettle, 410 F.3d 189, 191 (5th Cir. 2005). The movant bears 

the burden of establishing at least one of the Rule 60(b) requirements to 

obtain relief. Harrison v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 2018 WL 7048085, at *2 

(N.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2018), adopted by 2019 WL 202325 (N.D. Tex. Jan 15, 

2019).

III.

As a threshold matter, the Court should deny Jacobs’s motion because 

it is an impermissible substitute for an appeal. Jacobs failed to file an appeal 

with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Jacobs states that he seeks to 

“reopen the case for the purpose of Disputing the claims of Defendant a 

consumer reporting agency.” Mot 1 (ECF No. 8). He then proceeds to 

address the merits of his civil action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act 

(FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. However, Jacobs fails to come forward with 

any “newly discovered evidence” that could not have been discovered in time 

to file a Rule 59(b) motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). 

Case 3:22-cv-00313-K-BT Document 9 Filed 02/16/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 40
4

Further, the Court should deny the motion as untimely because it was 

not filed within a reasonable time. Under Rule 60(c)(1), a party must file a 

Rule 60(b) motion within a reasonable time or show good cause for the 

delay.1In re Edwards, 865 F.3d 197, 208 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing In re 

Osborne, 379 F.3d 277, 283 (5th Cir. 2004)). “‘Good cause’ for a reasonable 

delay must be ‘evaluated on a case-by-case basis.’” Id. (quoting In re Osborne, 

379 F.3d at 283). Timeliness is assessed when the moving party has a basis 

to make such a motion, not the time that has passed since judgment was 

entered. First RepublicBank Fort Worth v. Norglass, Inc., 958 F.2d 117, 120 

(5th Cir. 1992). “Once a party has grounds to make a Rule 60(b) motion, 

however, he must bring the motion reasonably promptly, though ‘the 

determination of reasonableness is less than a scientific exercise.’” In re 

Edwards, 865 F.3d at 208-09 (quoting First RepublicBank Fort Worth, 958 

F.2d at 121). When a moving party fails to appeal, and the grounds for relief 

were known within the time to file an appeal, “the usual time period for direct 

appeal presumptively delimits, as a matter of law, the ‘reasonable time’ 

contemplated by Rule 60[ (c) ].” Pryor v. U.S. Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 288 

(5th Cir. 1985). The Court should not allow a party to use Rule 60(b) as an 

end run around appeal time limits. Id.

1

 All motions under Rule 60(b) must be filed within a “reasonable time.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). However, Rule 60(b) motions filed for the reasons set 

forth in Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) must be filed “no more than a year after the entry 

of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Id.

Case 3:22-cv-00313-K-BT Document 9 Filed 02/16/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 41
5

The Court entered judgment in this case on March 30, 2022. (ECF No. 

7.) Jacobs filed his Rule 60(b) motion more than eight months later—on 

December 2, 2022. There is no indication that there is any evidence not 

known to Jacobs on March 30, when the Court entered its order dismissing 

his case without prejudice and entered judgment. Ord. (ECF No. 6); J. (ECF 

No. 7). As noted, Jacobs did not appeal this Court’s ruling. 

Even if Jacob’s motion were appropriate and timely, the Court should 

still deny it on the merits because Jacobs has not shown any mistake in the 

judgment. Rather, Jacobs merely discusses the merits of his civil action 

under the FCRA and argues TransUnion LLC owes him $50,000. In sum, 

Jacobs has failed to demonstrate there was any mistake in the judgment or 

any other reason to grant relief from the judgment. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Court should DENY Jacobs’s Rule 60(b) motion (ECF No. 8). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

February 16, 2023.

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00313-K-BT Document 9 Filed 02/16/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 42
6

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of 

this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 

14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.

P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for 

the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection 

that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will 

bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the 

district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United 

Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:22-cv-00313-K-BT Document 9 Filed 02/16/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 43