Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied Welby Thomas Cox Jr.'s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment in his Administrative Procedure Act challenge to the Department of Justice's collection of a restitution debt. The court held that Cox had not shown a manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or a violation of the Seventh Circuit's prior mandate. The court granted Cox's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis while noting that he remains liable for appellate fees.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Cox established grounds under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the summary judgment.
- Whether the prior Seventh Circuit mandate barred the district court from applying waiver principles in adjudicating Cox's APA claim.
- Whether Cox could proceed in forma pauperis on appeal while remaining liable for appellate fees.
Holdings
- Cox was not entitled to Rule 59(e) relief because he did not establish a manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or another extraordinary basis for altering the judgment.
- The prior Seventh Circuit mandate did not prevent the district court from applying ordinary waiver principles, and the Department of Justice was entitled to summary judgment because it provided the notice required by the Treasury Offset Program.
- Cox was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, but remained liable for the applicable fees.
Key quotations
“"Relief under Rule 59(e) is generally reserved for extraordinary cases."” (at 1)
“"A Rule 59(e) motion can be granted only where the movant clearly establishes: (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment."” (at 1)
“"Rule 59(e) does not provide a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures, and it certainly does not allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could and should have been presented to the district court prior to judgment."” (at 1)
“The Department of Justice was entitled to summary judgment in this case because it provided the notice required by the Treasury Offset Program.” (at 2)
“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a district court may allow a litigant to proceed 'without prepayment of fees,’ ... but not without ever paying fees.” (at 3)
Factual background
Cox challenged the Department of Justice's efforts to collect his restitution debt under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court had granted summary judgment to the Department after concluding that it provided the notice required by the Treasury Offset Program and that Cox waived any challenge to the notice's sufficiency under 31 U.S.C. § 3716. Cox asserted that he lacked notice of the summary-judgment response deadline, that the Court misstated the year of his sentencing and overlooked communications, and that the judgment violated the Seventh Circuit's prior mandate.
Procedural history
The Court previously granted the Department of Justice's motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment. In an earlier appeal, the Seventh Circuit remanded for adjudication of Cox's APA claim and found other arguments waived. Cox then filed a Rule 59(e) motion challenging the summary-judgment proceedings and the Court's compliance with the mandate; the Court denied that motion and granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.