United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
CHERYL GRAY, as parent and next friend of ARIANA M. BUNTING, Plaintiff,
EDWARD JOSEPH GRAY, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Sean F. Cox, U.S. District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) (“Rule 60(b)(6) Motion”) (Docket #54). No response has been filed, and the Court concludes that no response is necessary to resolve Plaintiff’s Motion. In addition, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments pertinent to the Motion are adequately presented in Plaintiff’s papers, and the decision process will not be aided by oral arguments. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. Local R. 7.1(f)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion be resolved on the brief submitted, without this Court entertaining oral arguments. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(6) Motion is denied.
This case grew out of divorce proceedings in Guam, a U.S. Territory, between Plaintiff Cheryl Gray (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Edward Joseph Gray (“Defendant”). The facts of the case are set forth in detail in Bunting ex rel. Gray v. Gray, 2 F. App’x 443 (6th Cir. 2001), and are incorporated by reference herein. The Court briefly notes the following additional facts.
After the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the instant cause of action to this Court on February 15, 2001, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on March 21, 2001, as well as a stipulation dismissing Defendant Navy Federal Credit Union, without prejudice, about the same time. In 2013, Plaintiff filed an action in this Court against Defendant, alleging that Defendant’s actions in their Guam Superior Court divorce proceedings and the unconstitutional Guam divorce statutes violated her rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. See Gray v. Gray, No. 13-13434, E.D. Mich. 2013 (the “2013 Gray Case”). In upholding this Court’s dismissal of the 2013 Gray Case because Defendant was not a state actor, the Sixth Circuit also upheld this Court’s order enjoining Plaintiff “from filing future actions involving these same issues [the divorce proceedings] without first obtaining leave of the court . . . [i]n light of [Plaintiff’s] history of vexatious filings[.]” Gray v. Gray, No. 14-1576, Slip Op. at 2, Feb. 18, 2015 (6th Cir. 2015). The Sixth Circuit also imposed sanctions against Plaintiff in the 2013 Gray Case, stating that the 2013 Gray Case “had no chance of success and was indeed frivolous. In enjoining her from filing another action against her ex-husband without leave of the court, the district court recognized that [the 2013 Gray C]ase was merely the most recent act in her decade-and-a-half exploitation of the legal system to harass her ex-husband.”
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, parts (b) and (c) provide, in part, that:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.
(1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time . . .
The Court finds that the statements of Plaintiff in the Rule 60(b)(6) Motion and supporting brief demonstrate that her motion was not filed within a reasonable time. ...