Dasey v. Massachusetts Department of State Police

First Circuit

Dasey v. Massachusetts Department of State Police

111 F. App'x 620

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedNovember 12, 2004

Docket04-1212, 04-1605

StatusPublished

This text of 111 F. App'x 620 (Dasey v. Massachusetts Department of State Police) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dasey v. Massachusetts Department of State Police, 111 F. App'x 620 (1st Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In No. 04-1212, appellant Brian Dasey appeals from the district court’s denial of his motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), for reconsideration, and for sanctions. In No. 04-1605, he appeals from the denial of a second motion for reconsideration and a motion for leave to supplement his filings.

After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments, we affirm the judgments below, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dasey’s motions. We agree substantially with the reasoning in the district court’s Memorandum of Decision dated January 29, 2004, and its March 2, 2004 endorsed order denying reconsideration. In addition, as appellees contend, Dasey may not use a Rule 60(b) motion to relitigate issues already decided by this court, Dasey v. Anderson, 304 F.3d 148, 151 (1st Cir.2002), or to raise issues that might have been, but were not, asserted in prior court proceedings. 12 Moore’s Fed. Prac. § 60.48[3][c], at 60-174.1 (3d ed.2003) (confirming that a party’s “[f]ailure to take advantage of an opportunity to litigate an issue precludes use of that issue to secure” Rule 60(b)(6) relief). Finally, Dasey’s motions failed to establish the alleged “fraud on the court.”

The judgments in the above appeals are affirmed. 1st Cir. Loe. R. 27(c).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In No. 04-1212, appellant Brian Dasey appeals from the district court’s denial of his motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), for reconsideration, and for sanctions. In No. 04-1605, he appeals from the denial of a second motion for reconsideration and a motion for leave to supplement his filings.

After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments, we affirm the judgments below, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dasey’s motions. We agree substantially with the reasoning in the district court’s Memorandum of Decision dated January 29, 2004, and its March 2, 2004 endorsed order denying reconsideration. In addition, as appellees contend, Dasey may not use a Rule 60(b) motion to relitigate issues already decided by this court, Dasey v. Anderson, 304 F.3d 148, 151 (1st Cir.2002), or to raise issues that might have been, but were not, asserted in prior court proceedings. 12 Moore’s Fed. Prac. § 60.48[3][c], at 60-174.1 (3d ed.2003) (confirming that a party’s “[f]ailure to take advantage of an opportunity to litigate an issue precludes use of that issue to secure” Rule 60(b)(6) relief). Finally, Dasey’s motions failed to establish the alleged “fraud on the court.”

The judgments in the above appeals are affirmed. 1st Cir. Loe. R. 27(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 F. App'x 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dasey-v-massachusetts-department-of-state-police-ca1-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack