Stacy Terry v. Matthew W. Robinett

── Stacy Terry v. Matthew W. Robinett ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12518 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12518 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ STACY TERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MATTHEW W. ROBINETT, In official/personal capacity, J.R. GAINES, Judge, In official/personal capacity, AMANDA BESHEAR COOK, CHARLES MARK BAIN, In official/personal capacities, JOHNNY HARDWICK, Judge, In official/personal capacity, TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 25-12518 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 2 of 7 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12518 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:20-cv-01058-RAH-SMD ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Stacy Terry, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) motion for relief from its adverse judgment and its denial of her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter its decision about her Rule 60(b)(4) motion. She argues that the district court should have granted both motions because it relied on briefing from terminated counsel to render its judgment and permitted conflicted counsel to participate in the proceedings before it dismissed her second amended complaint. After careful review, we affirm the district court. I. Stacy Terry sued fourteen defendants, including “Travelers Insurance,” for allegedly violating over forty federal, state, and for- eign statutes, rules, and canons. Doc. 1 at 1–5. The Phoenix Insur- ance Company responded to her complaint and explained that Terry misidentified it as “Travelers Insurance.” Other defendants moved to dismiss. The district court then dismissed Terry’s first complaint as a shotgun pleading but gave her leave to refile. USCA11 Case: 25-12518 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 3 of 7 25-12518 Opinion of the Court 3 Terry filed an amended complaint that added “The Phoenix Insurance Company” as a defendant. Doc. 91 at 2. She later moved to remove Phoenix from her complaint and to file a second amended complaint. Before the court ruled on Terry’s motions, Phoenix explained that it issued the insurance policies relevant to the dispute and that “Travelers Insurance” was not a legal entity. Phoenix also filed an insurance policy that established that it was the “insuring company” under the relevant “Travelers” policy. Doc. 95-1 at 2–3. The district court then gave Terry leave to amend her com- plaint, and she filed a second amended complaint that removed Phoenix and kept “Travelers Insurance” as a defendant. Doc. 109 at 1–2. Phoenix responded that Terry misidentified it as “Travelers Insurance” and moved to dismiss her claims against it. Doc. 111 at 1 & n.1. The remaining thirteen defendants also moved to dis