Powell v. Laurie, 5:16-cv-03251

Powell, a pro se inmate at Atchison County Jail, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging inadequate medical care for diabetes, retaliation, and denial of information.
The Court issued an August 11, 2017 show-cause order finding the complaint legally insufficient: medical claims lacked deliberate indifference, information claims had no constitutional violation, and retaliation allegations failed for lack of an adverse action.
Powell did not respond to the show-cause order; the Court dismissed the complaint on September 20, 2017 for failure to state a claim.
Powell moved to reopen under Rule 60(b), explaining he did not receive mail because of an order of protection and alleging his medical treatment had worsened. He did not address the specific deficiencies identified in the dismissal.
The Court treated the filing as a Rule 60(b) motion, reviewed the record, and denied relief, concluding Powell failed to show "exceptional circumstances" or good cause and had not complied with the local rule requiring notice of address changes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal should be set aside under Rule 60(b)	Powell said he missed court mail due to an order of protection and his condition had worsened	The Court argued lack of good cause, failure to address claimed defects, and noncompliance with local rule on address changes	Denied: no exceptional circumstances or excusable neglect shown
Whether original complaint stated Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim	Powell contended medical care for diabetes was inadequate and dangerous	Court found allegations did not show deliberate indifference necessary for § 1983 Eighth Amendment claim	Complaint failed to state a claim (previous dismissal affirmed as basis for denial)
Whether retaliation claim was sufficient	Powell alleged retaliatory conduct by jail staff	Court noted plaintiff did not allege a sufficiently adverse action to support retaliation claim	Retaliation claim insufficient as pleaded
Whether denial-of-information claim violated federal law	Powell claimed he was denied information	Court found allegations did not establish any constitutional or federal-law violation	Claim not cognizable

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for medical care)
Weitz v. Lovelace Health Sys. Inc., 214 F.3d 1175 (Rule 60(b) treatment of motions seeking relief from judgment)
Amoco Oil Co. v. U.S. EPA, 231 F.3d 694 (Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and granted only in exceptional circumstances)
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005 (same principle that Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary)
Eaton v. Meneley, 379 F.3d 949 (retaliation requires sufficiently adverse action)
Reed v. Heimgartner, [citation="579 F. App'x 624"] (retaliation pleading requirements)