Hefley v. Village of Calumet Park

312 F. App'x 824 (7th Cir. 2009) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · February 25, 2009

Summary

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Travis Hefley’s Rule 60(b) motion challenging the judgment in his reverse racial discrimination case against the Village of Calumet Park. The court held that the motion was untimely, that the asserted materials did not establish fraud on the court, and that sanctions for a frivolous appeal were unwarranted despite warning Hefley that future sanctions were possible.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Per curiam; Posner; Williams; Wood
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
February 25, 2009
Procedural posture
Travis Hefley appealed the district court's denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion seeking relief from the judgment in his reverse racial discrimination action. The appellees also moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion for the district court's Rule 60(b) ruling.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Travis Hefley v. Village of Calumet Park, Julie A. Bruch, other defendants-appellees
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

motion for reconsiderationappellate proceduresanctionsracial discriminationcivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedureappellate procedurecivil rightsemployment discriminationmunicipal law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Hefley's Rule 60(b)(2) motion as untimely.
  2. Whether alleged conduct by the defendants constituted fraud on the court sufficient to avoid Rule 60(b)(2)'s one-year time limit under Rule 60(d)(3).
  3. Whether the appeal warranted sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.

Holdings

  1. The district court properly denied Hefley's Rule 60(b)(2) motion because it was filed more than one year after entry of the final judgment.
  2. Hefley did not establish fraud on the court under Rule 60(d)(3), and therefore could not circumvent the one-year limitation applicable to his Rule 60(b)(2) motion.
  3. Although the appeal lacked merit, the court declined to impose monetary sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 in light of Hefley's financial circumstances.

Key quotations

“An appeal is frivolous if it is so meritless that the result is foreordained.” (826)
“A frivolous appeal is one in which the result is obvious or when the appellant’s argument is wholly without merit.” (826)

Factual background

Hefley was employed as a part-time police officer by the Village of Calumet Park from October 2001 through March 2004. He was terminated after failing an annual police-department firearms test despite being given three opportunities to pass. He claimed that his discharge resulted from reverse racial discrimination, but the district court found that he could not establish a prima facie case. His later Rule 60(b) motion relied on documents from unrelated lawsuits involving the Village and alleged fraud, evidence tampering, and concealment by opposing counsel.

Procedural history

Hefley brought a reverse racial discrimination claim arising from his termination as a part-time police officer. The district court denied the claim because he could not establish a prima facie case and entered final judgment against him on May 15, 2006. Hefley filed a Rule 60(b) motion on August 29, 2008, alleging newly discovered evidence and fraud on the court; the district court denied it as untimely and meritless. The Seventh Circuit affirmed and declined to impose sanctions.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…