Chester v. St. Louis Housing Authority, 87-1352

Decision Date28 May 1987
Docket NumberNo. 87-1352,87-1352
Citation820 F.2d 259
PartiesJohnnie Miles CHESTER, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Johnnie Miles Chester appeals, pro se, from the district court's 1 order denying his motion for reconsideration. We affirm.

This case arises out of Chester's attempts to regain his position as a Sergeant of Security Operations with defendant St. Louis Housing Authority. In July 1985, following his voluntary resignation, Chester filed a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action against the Housing Authority charging it with violating his due process right to a timely pretermination hearing. In his complaint, Chester sought reinstatement and backpay damages.

A jury returned a verdict in favor of Chester and awarded him $10,000 in damages on April 8, 1986. The jury did not, however, award Chester reinstatement as he had requested. On May 13, 1986, the Housing Authority paid Chester $10,000 in full satisfaction of the judgment and Chester signed a statement to that effect.

Chester never appealed the jury's verdict. Instead, on October 21, 1986, more than six months after the entry of judgment, Chester filed a "Motion for Reinstatement and Backpay" with the district court. The district court construed Chester's motion as one for relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Hungate then denied the motion holding that no relief was available because 1) the April 8th judgment was fully satisfied; 2) the relief sought in the motion--reinstatement and backpay--was beyond that awarded in the judgment; and, 3) no power existed otherwise to reinstate Chester after he voluntarily resigned from his position.

On appeal, Chester apparently argues that the court failed to properly instruct the jury on the issues of reinstatement and backpay and should have, therefore, granted his motion for reconsideration. This court's decision in Fox v. Brewer, 620 F.2d 177 (8th Cir.1980), controls and requires affirmance of the district court's order.

Rule 60(b) "provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances." Hoffman v. Celebrezze, 405 F.2d 833, 835 (8th Cir.1969). "An appeal from a Rule 60(b) decision does not bring the original judgment up for review, but only the decision on the request for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b)." Fox v. Brewer, 620 F.2d at 179-80. The rule, then, "is not intended as a substitute for a timely appeal." Hoffman, 405 F.2d at 836. Thus, where the "alleged error could have been corrected by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • In re Republic Fabricators, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • July 20, 1989
    ...circuit court for review, but only the decision on the request for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Chester v. St. Louis Housing Authority, 820 F.2d 259, 261 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 899, 108 S.Ct. 236, 98 L.Ed.2d 195, (citing Fox v. Brewer, 620 F.2d 177, 179-80 (8th Cir......
  • Sanders v. Clemco Industries
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 30, 1988
    ...of that judgment. Townsend v. Terminal Packaging Co., 853 F.2d 623, 624 (8th Cir.1988) (per curiam); Chester v. St. Louis Hous. Auth., 820 F.2d 259, 260 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 236, 98 L.Ed.2d 195 (1987). The rule specifically provides, however, that ......
  • Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Rock Creek Farms
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • August 21, 2013
    ...for review, but only the decision on the request for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b).” Id. (quoting Chester v. St. Louis Hous. Auth., 820 F.2d 259, 260 (8th Cir.1987)). [¶ 15.] It is apparent that the purpose of Appellants' Rule 60(b) motions was to raise arguments pertaining to t......
  • Lowe v. Schwartz
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 7, 2006
    ...judgment up for review, but only the decision on the request for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b)." Chester v. St. Louis Hous. Auth., 820 F.2d 259, 260 (8thCir.1987) (quoting Fox v. Brewer, 620 F.2d 177, 179-80 [¶ 11.] Lowe's motion was premised on SDCL 15-6-60(b)(1), which provide......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT