Case Name: Myron HUBBARD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH; St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center; Metropolitan St. Louis Psychiatric Center, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-24
Citations: 669 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 16-1507
Parties: Myron HUBBARD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH; St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center; Metropolitan St. Louis Psychiatric Center, Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before SMITH, BENTON, and, SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ■
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 816–817

Head Matter:
Myron HUBBARD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH; St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center; Metropolitan St. Louis Psychiatric Center, Defendants-Appellees
No. 16-1507
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: October 20, 2016
Filed: October 24, 2016
Myron Hubbard, Pro Se.
Eileen Ruppe Krispin, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before SMITH, BENTON, and, SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ■

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Myron Hubbard appeals the dismissal of his Title VI action. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Following de novo review, this court finds the district court properly 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.,715 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 District of Missouri.