J. Austin Russell v. Scotti A. Hill, Emily A. Lee, Sharadee Fleming, and The Office of Professional Conduct

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied J. Austin Russell’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6) for relief from an order dismissing his claims and denying leave to amend. The court held that Russell had not pleaded an actionable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, had not established grounds for extraordinary relief, and could not support a proposed malicious-prosecution claim because he alleged no Fourth Amendment seizure and the underlying professional-conduct investigation was civil in nature.

Holdings

1. Rule 60(b)(1) relief was unavailable because the complaint plainly asserted abuse of process under Utah law, and Russell's failure to plead a § 1983 claim was a deliberate and counseled litigation decision rather than an excusable mistake or a judicial mistake of law or fact.
2. Rule 60(b)(6) relief was unavailable because Russell identified no extraordinary circumstance or post-judgment event making enforcement of the prior order inequitable.
3. Relief was properly denied because Russell supplied no new factual allegations showing injury in fact or identifying facts overlooked by the court.
4. The proposed malicious-prosecution claim was futile because Russell alleged neither detention nor another infringement of his Fourth Amendment rights, and the professional-conduct investigation was civil rather than criminal in nature.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Russell was entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) or 60(b)(6) based on his contention that the court should have treated his state-law abuse-of-process claim as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether the court's prior dismissal of the abuse-of-process claim for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction was erroneous or inequitable.
3. Whether Russell was entitled to relief from the denial of leave to amend to add a federal malicious-prosecution claim.
4. Whether the proposed malicious-prosecution claim was futile because Russell did not allege injury in fact or a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Disposition

other