DONALD D. BAILEY and SANDRA M. BAILEY, Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.
CINDY K. JORGENSON, District Judge.
Pending before the Court are the Motion for Hearing to Review Status of Motion (Doc. 170), an Objection (Doc. 172) and a Second Request for Hearing (Doc. 174) filed by Plaintiffs Donald D. Bailey ("D. Bailey") and Sandra M. Bailey ("S. Bailey") (collectively, "Plaintiffs").
This matter proceeded to a bench trial on June 14, 2007. On August 8, 2007, this Court issued its decision, finding that Plaintiffs had failed to sustain their burden of proof and finding in favor of the government.
On December 3, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Stay Proceeding to Enforce Judgment. Over the government's objection, the Court granted the motion.
On December 27, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for New Trial. On February 13, 2008, this Court issued an Order construing the motion as a motion for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and denying relief. The Order also vacated the order staying enforcement of the judgment.
On February 21, 2008, and April 8, 2008, Plaintiffs filed Motions for Additional Time to File Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Correct Mistake seeking additional time to file a Motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a). On April 11, 2008, the Court denied the request finding that Plaintiffs had failed to show cause that justified granting the requested extension.
On June 17, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2), Newly Discovered Evidence, and Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3), Fraud, for Relief from Judgment or Order and, on June 24, 2008, a Motion to Stay Proceedings to Enforce Judgment Pending Motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(3). In seeking relief, Plaintiffs again argue that newly-discovered evidence establishes fraud. Plaintiffs assert the newly-discovered evidence was not discovered until after the Court's February 13, 2008, Order. On September 26, 2008, this Court denied Plaintiffs' request relief. Additionally, the Court ordered that Plaintiffs "shall not file any further motions seeking relief based on claims that Hale perjured herself or committed fraud without prior approval of the Court. Should Plaintiffs seek to submit such a filing, they shall lodge the motion for the Court's review prior to its filing." September 26, 2008, Order, Doc. 121, p. 5.
Plaintiffs appealed this matter. On June 21, 2010, the appellate court issued a memorandum decision affirming the judgment of this Court. On July 16, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Second Motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(3). The appellate court issued its mandate on August 16, 2010, and on November 5, 2010, this Court ordered Plaintiffs' Motion to be stricken.
This Court granted Plaintiffs' requests for additional time to file a Motion for Reconsideration and, on July 20, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Third Motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(3). This Court denied the Motion on September 22, 2011.
On March 14, 2012, Plaintiffs requested leave to file a Fourth Motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and (c) and, on May 4, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to file a Fifth Motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). On June 1, 2012, this Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file the motions, but denied the relief requested in the Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 motions.
Plaintiffs appealed this Court's denial of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 relief. While the appeal was pending, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(d)(1) on July 31, 2012. On November 7, 2012, the appellate court summarily affirmed this Court June 1, 2012, Order. The appellate court also ordered all other pending motions denied as moot. The mandate was issued on December 31, 2012. The Clerk of Court terminated the July 31, 2012, Motion for Leave to File a Motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(d)(1) pursuant to the appellate court's order that all pending motions be denied as moot.
On April 25, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Hearing to Review Status ...