IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

SUSANNE BECKER,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JAMES THOMAS HURD,

Defendant.

8:23CV208

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Susanne Becker’s Objection, Filing No. 

20, which the Court liberally construes either as a motion to alter or amend judgment, 

filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), or as a motion for relief from 

judgment, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). For the reasons 

discussed below, the motion will be denied. 

Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law 

or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer 

Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006). Rule 60(b) provides that a judgment may be set 

aside, inter alia, for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” for “newly 

discovered evidence,” or for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(1),(2),(6). The catch-all provision of Rule 60(b)(6) authorizes relief only in the most 

exceptional of cases. In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liab. Litig., 

496 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir. 2007). 

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint because Plaintiff’s allegations were

predominantly legal conclusions about her ex-husband’s alleged violations of Plaintiff’s 

legal rights, but the Complaint provided few facts to give context or support for how the 

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 21 Filed: 07/12/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 84
2

violations occurred. Filing No. 18 at 3. The Court also dismissed the claim because 

Plaintiff appeared to seek relief by changing provisions of her divorce decree. 

Accordingly, the Court lacked jurisdiction under the domestic-relations doctrine. Filing 

No. 18 at 4; see also Abel v. Abel, No. 8:19CV347, 2019 WL 4203521, at *1 (D. Neb. 

Sept. 5, 2019) (citing Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 694-95 (1992)).

Plaintiff’s Objection does not address any of the Court’s reasons for dismissal. 

Instead, Plaintiff primarily argues that Defendant1 does not have immunity from paying 

damages as a government official. Filing No. 20 at 1. Plaintiff makes several indiscernible 

arguments, including that she was the only government official in her marriage because 

she was an employee of the United States Postal Service, and that Defendant should not 

be immune because he attempted to sexually assault and murder a government official. 

Filing No. 20 at 1. Plaintiff also argues that the Court cannot dismiss her claims due to 

default judgment and requests that the government provide Defendant’s real address. 

Filing No. 20 at 2. Even construed liberally, none of Plaintiff’s arguments relate in any 

way to the Court’s Memorandum and Order at Filing No. 18, much less satisfy the 

requirements of Rules 59(e), or 60(b). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection, Filing No. 20, construed 

either as a Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) motion, is denied.

Dated this 12th day of July, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

1 Plaintiff appears to refer to Defendant as James Hurd and James Peterson.

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 21 Filed: 07/12/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 85