Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Herbert W. Lux, Jr. and Janice M. Lux’s motions to reconsider the closure of their case and to strike an allegedly unauthorized filing. The court held that the proposed amended claims concerning unlawful arrest and extradition would be futile because the alleged conduct did not establish a constitutional violation or a violation of applicable extradition procedures. The court also denied relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to relief under Rule 59(e) from the Final Order closing the case and denying leave to amend as moot.
- Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to relief under Rule 60(b), including Rules 60(b)(3) or 60(b)(6), from the Final Order.
- Whether the proposed amended complaint would be futile because it failed to cure the defects identified in the original complaint.
- Whether the Virginia Defendants' opposition to reconsideration was an unauthorized filing subject to striking under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11(a) or 12(f), or Local Civil Rule 83.1(G).
- Whether alleged violations of New York's Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, without a sufficiently alleged deprivation of federal constitutional rights, could support a § 1983 claim against Virginia officials.
Holdings
- Rule 59(e) relief was unwarranted because the proposed amended complaint would be futile. The pleading did not cure the defects identified in the original complaint, and Plaintiffs did not show that the proposed claims would survive a motion to dismiss.
- Leave to amend was properly denied as futile because reframing the previously asserted unlawful-arrest claim under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause did not alter the court's conclusion that the arrest was supported by probable cause and therefore valid absent a warrant.
- The proposed illegal-extradition claims were futile because Plaintiffs failed to allege that the Virginia Defendants violated New York's extradition statutes or that any state-law violation caused a deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.
- Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(3) or Rule 60(b)(6). They failed to identify a qualifying basis for relief, failed to show that the judgment was procured by fraud or other unfair means, and failed to establish extraordinary circumstances.
- The Motion to Strike was properly denied because the Virginia Defendants' current attorneys had entered appearances before filing the opposition, making the filing proper despite the later order formally granting substitution of counsel.
Key quotations
“The Court “may not grant [a] post-judgment motion [to amend] unless the judgment is vacated pursuant to Rule 59(e) or [Rule] 60(b).”” (at 8)
“The court need only ask whether the amendment should be granted, just as it would on a prejudgment motion to amend pursuant to [Rule] 15(a).” (at 10)
“A proposed amendment is futile when it is clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face ... [or] if the claim it presents would not survive a motion to dismiss.” (at 11)
“an individual must show that the violation of the state's extradition laws ‘cause[d] the deprivation of rights protected by the Constitution and statutes of the United States.’” (at 14)
“Rule 60(b)(3) focuses not on erroneous judgments as such, but on judgments which were unfairly procured.” (at 16)
“Rule 60(b)(6) relief “requires extraordinary circumstances.”” (at 17)
Factual background
The action arose from Herbert Lux's arrest in New York and extradition at the request of Virginia officials. Plaintiffs alleged that the arrest was unlawful, that Mr. Lux was maliciously prosecuted, and that arresting officers used excessive force. The court previously found probable cause for the arrest and found no sufficient allegations connecting the Virginia Defendants to the alleged excessive force or establishing bystander or supervisory liability. Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint again challenged the arrest and extradition procedures and asserted Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment theories.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed a § 1983 action arising from Herbert Lux's arrest and extradition, asserting unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, and excessive-force claims under the Fourth Amendment. The court dismissed all claims against the Virginia Defendants on September 9, 2024. Plaintiffs then moved for leave to amend. After Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the New York Defendants on April 28, 2025, the court denied the amendment motion as moot, closed the case, and entered a Final Order. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and to strike the Virginia Defendants' opposition; the court denied both motions and left the case closed.