Inez Hunter v. Ford Motor Company

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[Unpublished]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.
Inez Hunter appeals after the District Court1 denied her motion for
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 without fault 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.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
-2-