In re: The Estate of Brian Keith Bennett, et al. v. C. Gomez, Warden, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denies Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from a judgment dismissing their claims arising from Brian Keith Bennett’s death while incarcerated. The court concludes that most arguments were untimely, and that Plaintiffs failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence any qualifying mistake, newly discovered evidence, discovery misconduct, excusable neglect, or extraordinary circumstance. The court also reiterates that the pleaded failure-to-protect theory was not cognizable under Bivens and that Plaintiffs failed to plead individual deliberate-indifference liability.

Holdings

1. Most of Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) claims are untimely due to unreasonable delay; Plaintiffs could have brought nearly all challenges within days of the judgment but waited a full year without adequate explanation. However, the Rule 60(b)(2) claim based on newly discovered video evidence (available only since May 2025) is not time-barred.
2. The court did not commit the legal errors Plaintiffs identify. Plaintiffs were initially permitted to proceed on their Carlson/Estelle deliberate-indifference claim, and the subsequent dismissal was based on Plaintiffs' failure to allege direct action or involvement by named Defendants, not on a misinterpretation of law. The failure-to-protect claim was properly foreclosed by Egbert v. Boule.
3. Attorney Noll's failure to file a Rule 59(e) motion does not justify relief because Plaintiffs failed to identify any viable underlying claim that would have altered the court's analysis.
4. Plaintiffs' newly discovered video evidence would not change the outcome of the Rule 12(b)(6) analysis because it does not establish individual liability by the named Defendants for deliberate indifference to Bennett's medical needs.
5. Defendants did not commit discovery misconduct because they were never under a specific obligation to produce discovery; a discovery stay was properly granted pending resolution of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
6. Plaintiffs' allegations of attorney Noll's deficient performance and abandonment do not meet the extraordinary circumstances threshold required for Rule 60(b)(6) relief, and Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a good underlying claim.
7. Plaintiffs waived their Rule 60(b) claims by failing to articulate the applicable legal standards or show how their arguments fit within those standards, offering only perfunctory and skeletal argumentation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) motion was timely filed
2. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1) for judicial mistake or attorney error/excusable neglect
3. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(2) for newly discovered evidence
4. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(3) for opposing party's fraud or misconduct
5. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) for attorney abandonment constituting extraordinary circumstances
6. Whether Plaintiffs adequately developed their arguments for Rule 60(b) relief

Disposition

other