John Andrew Kister v. Patrice Richie Jones

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denies the plaintiff’s pro se motion for relief from final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). The court holds that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or diligence, noting that he did not appeal the summary judgment ruling and waited nearly two years after judgment to seek postjudgment relief. The case remains closed.

Holdings

1. The Chapman concurrence did not establish a change in law and therefore could not, standing alone, constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting Rule 60(b)(6) relief.
2. Plaintiff failed to establish extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from the final judgment because he did not appeal the summary-judgment ruling and waited nearly two years after judgment, and approximately six months after Kister v. Borowicz, to seek postjudgment relief.

Questions Presented

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

Disposition

other