John Andrew Kister v. John Q. Hamm, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied John Andrew Kister’s pro se motion to reopen his case, construing it as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). The court held that reliance on subsequent Eleventh Circuit decisions concerning special-report procedures did not establish extraordinary circumstances, particularly because Kister did not appeal the judgment and waited nearly two years to seek postjudgment relief.

Holdings

1. A judicial concurrence that does not effect a change in law is insufficient, by itself, to establish the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
2. Plaintiff was not entitled to Rule 60(b)(6) relief because he did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, including the diligence required to challenge the special-report procedure.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to relief from the final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) based on later Eleventh Circuit authority concerning special-report procedures.
2. Whether Plaintiff's failure to object to the Recommendation, appeal the judgment, or timely pursue review precluded a finding of extraordinary circumstances.

Disposition

other