Lopez v. Gateway Financial Solutions Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SOTERO LOPEZ,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 2:24-cv-11836
v. 	Honorable Susan K. DeClercq
United States District Judge
GATEWAY FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT (ECF No. 11)
In July 2024, Plaintiff Sotero Lopez sued Gateway Financial Solutions
Corporation. ECF No. 1. One month later, this Court dismissed his case for failure
to prosecute and because he has had at least five other in forma pauperis complaints
dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, or for not stating a claim. ECF No. 7. 	A
judgment of dismissal was issued on August 2, 2024. ECF No. 8.
Just over a year later, Lopez filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment under
Civil Rule 60(b). ECF No. 11 at PageID.166. In the motion, Lopez asserted that this
Court erroneously treated five of his prior cases as “frivolous, malicious, or failing
to state a claim,” and thus erroneously applied the three-strikes rule. Id. 	He thus
requests relief under Civil Rule 60(b)(1), (4), and (6). Id. at 166–67. However, later
in his motion papers, Lopez states that he “does not seek to reopen the merits of the
Case 2:24-cv-11836-SKD-EAS ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
underlying complaint, but only to correct the legal characterization of prior
dismissals and the nature of this dismissal.” Id. at PageID.168. On the same day
Lopez filed his motion for relief from judgment, id., he also filed a “Notice of
Clarification” which Lopez says he filed “strictly for the purpose of correcting and
clarifying the record,” citing Civil Rule 60(a). ECF No. 12 at PageID.175. Plaintiff
goes on to say that he “does not seek reconsideration, amendment, or reopening of
judgment. No relief is requested.” Id. at PageID.176.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Civil Rule 60(b)(1), “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve
a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . .
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). In
the Sixth Circuit, Civil Rule 60(b)(1) may apply either “(1) when a party has made
an excusable mistake or an attorney has acted without authority, or (2) when the
judge has made a substantive mistake of law or fact in the final judgment or order.”
United States v. Reyes, 307 F.3d 451, 455 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Cacevic v. City of
Hazel Park, 226 F.3d 483, 490 (6th Cir. 2000)). Judicial mistakes need not be
“obvious” and include judicial errors of law. Kemp v. United States, 596 U.S. 528,
533–34 (2022). However, motions seeking relief under Civil Rule 60(b)(1) must be
filed “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the
proceeding.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1).
Case 2:24-cv-11836-SKD-EAS ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
Additionally, the court may relieve a party from a final judgment if “the
judgment is void,” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(4), or for “any other reason that justifies
relief,” F ED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6).
II. ANALYSIS
To the extent Lopez seeks relief under Civil Rule 60(b)(1) because he asserts
this Court made a mistake of law, such a motion under this subsection must be filed
within a year after entry of judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1). Here, Lopez’s
motion was filed more than a year after this Court’s August 2, 2024, judgment, ECF
No. 8, thus any relief requested under Civil Rule 60(b)(1) must be denied.1
To the extent Lopez seeks relief under Civil Rule 60(b)(4), such relief is not
warranted either. This subsection authorizes a court to relieve a party from a void
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). And a judgment may only be considered void
“in the rare instance where [it] is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional
error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the
1 Notably, even if Lopez had filed his Rule 60(b)(1) motion within the timeframe for
doing so, it would still be denied. Although it might be true that this Court made a
mistake of law when it contemplated application of the three-strikes rule, see 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), to Lopez (a non-prisoner litigant), the primary basis for dismissal
of Lopez’s complaint was that Lopez failed to establish that he was unable to pay
the filing fee and did not then pay the filing fee. See ECF No. 7 at PageID.152–53;
see also ECF No. 5 at PageID.61–62. And that analysis remains sound. As noted, at
the time Lopez filed his complaint, he appeared to have a discretionary income, so
this Court properly directed him to pay the full filing fee. ECF No. 5 at PageID.62.
And when Lopez failed to pay that fee, the dismissal of his case on the basis for
failure to prosecute was appropriate. ECF No. 7 at PageID.152.
Case 2:24-cv-11836-SKD-EAS ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
opportunity to be heard.” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260,
271 (2010). No such circumstance exists here.
Finally, to the extent Lopez seeks relief under Civil Rule 60(b)(6), such relief
will also be denied. Relief under Civil Rule 60(b)(6) “applies ‘only in exceptional
or extraordinary circumstances which are not addressed by the first five numbered
clauses of the Rule.’” Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Trs. of UMWA Combined Ben.
Fund, 249 F.3d 519, 524 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Olle v. Henry & Wright Corp., 910
F.2d 357, 365 (6th Cir. 1990)). Lopez argues he is entitled to relief under this
subsection 	because 	this 	Court 	dismissed 	his 	complaint 	with 	prejudice 	and
“prohibited reinstatement even if filing fees were later paid.” ECF No. 11 at
PageID.167. 	Indeed, a Court may dismiss a case with or without prejudice if it
determines the plaintiff’s allegation of poverty is untrue. See McClafferty v. Portage
Cnty., Ohio Bd. of Comm’rs, No. 21-3335, 2021 WL 5755631, at *4 (6th Cir. Dec.
3, 2021) (noting such a dismissal may be with or without prejudice); Ojose v.
Youngstown State Univ., No. 19-3221, 2019 WL 8301664, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 18,
2019) (same); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). Thus, this Court’s proper
application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) and Civil Rule 41(b) does not create an
exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that would warrant relief from judgment
under Civil Rule 60(b)(6).
Case 2:24-cv-11836-SKD-EAS ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/05/25 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
In sum, because the basis for dismissal of Lopez’s complaint was proper and
dispositive, his motion for relief from judgment will be denied.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it 	is 	ORDERED 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	for Relief 	from
Judgment, ECF No. 11, is DENIED.
/s/ Susan K. DeClercq
SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ
United States District Judge
Dated: December 5, 2025
Case 2:24-cv-11836-SKD-EAS ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/05/25 Page 5 of 5