Summary
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Chiquita Newell’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 retaliation action as untimely. The court held that Newell could not use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to present allegations she knew before filing suit, and that her proposed amended complaint asserted a separate, also untimely claim. The court further concluded that relation back under Rule 15(c) did not apply because the original complaint was untimely and the claims arose from different conduct.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Newell could use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) after final judgment to present allegations that she knew when she filed the action but omitted from her original complaint.
- Whether Newell's proposed amended complaint cured the statute-of-limitations defect or related back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1).
Holdings
- A litigant may not use Rule 60(b) to present assertions that, with due diligence, could have been introduced before judgment on the motion from which relief is sought. Because Newell knew the additional allegations before filing suit, the district court properly denied Rule 60(b)(1) relief.
- The proposed amendment was futile because the alleged January 2013 retaliatory discharge was filed more than four years after the alleged violation, and the amendment could not relate back to the original complaint.
Key quotations
“a litigant may not rely on Rule 60(b) to present assertions “that with due diligence could have been introduced before judgment on the motion from which the party is seeking relief.”” (974)
“Finally the relation-back doctrine, under which an amended pleading “relates back to the date of the original pleading,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1), does not save Newell’s proposed amended complaint.” (974)
Factual background
After Newell filed a workers' compensation claim, her supervisor allegedly told her in January 2012 not to return to work. In January 2017, she sued personnel affiliated with her former employer under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for retaliation. After dismissal, she proposed an amended complaint alleging a different retaliatory discharge in January 2013 based on her filing of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge.
Procedural history
Newell filed suit in January 2017, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The district court permitted her to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as untimely. The court denied her Rule 60(b)(1) motion, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.