Adame v. Refugio County, 2:16-cv-00139

Ricardo Adame, a Hispanic former Refugio County sheriff’s deputy, was terminated on February 4, 2015; he sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 alleging race discrimination.
The district court granted summary judgment for Refugio County, finding Adame’s excessive and unapproved absences were legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination and Adame failed to show pretext.
Final judgment entered June 12, 2017; Adame filed a notice of appeal July 7, 2017.
After judgment, Adame submitted a new affidavit from Timothy Dickey claiming Sheriff Bolcik called Adame a “worthless fuckin Mexican” in Fall 2015 and later told Dickey he had fired Adame.
Adame moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (2), (3), and (6) (filed Oct. 2, 2017) seeking relief based on the newly discovered affidavit; the county disputes the conversation occurred.
The magistrate judge recommended denial of the Rule 60(b) motion for lack of diligence in discovering the evidence, untimeliness, and because the affidavit would not have produced a different result (insufficient to show pretext).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b)(2) relief is warranted for newly discovered evidence (Dickey affidavit)	Dickey's affidavit is direct evidence of racial animus and would create a genuine issue of material fact on motivating factor/pretext	The affidavit is untimely, plaintiff was not diligent, and the stray remark is insufficient to rebut nondiscriminatory reason	Denied: plaintiff failed to show due diligence or that the evidence would have changed the outcome
Whether the Rule 60(b) motion is timely under Rule 60(c)	Motion filed within a year and shortly after learning of affidavit	Plaintiff waited months after learning of affidavit and counsel delayed further; earlier investigation possible	Denied as untimely/unreasonable delay (lack of diligence)
Whether relief is available under Rule 60(b)(1) or (3) (mistake/fraud)	Failure to present the affidavit was excusable mistake; defendant’s alleged concealment amounted to misconduct	No clear-and-convincing evidence of fraud or misconduct; reasons asserted attributable to counsel delay or lack of investigation	Denied: extraordinary relief not shown; no proof of fraud or excusable mistake
Whether Rule 60(b)(6) (catch-all) applies	Equitable grounds and extraordinary circumstances justify reopening judgment	The asserted grounds duplicate other 60(b) claims and do not present extraordinary circumstances	Denied: no basis under catch-all separate from other subsections

Batts v. Tow-Motor Forklift Co., 66 F.3d 743 (5th Cir. 1995) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances)
Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d 341 (5th Cir. 1991) (district court discretion in Rule 60(b) determinations)
Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2005) (balance finality with justice in Rule 60 decisions)
Bailey v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc., 894 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. 1990) (caution in reopening judgments)
Longden v. Sunderman, 979 F.2d 1095 (5th Cir. 1992) (Rule 60(b)(2) is extraordinary and must be strictly met)
Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (reconsideration not for rehashing evidence/arguments)
Goldstein v. MCI WorldCom, 340 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 2003) (requirements for 60(b)(2): due diligence and materially different result)
Johnson Waste Materials v. Marshall, 611 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1980) (new evidence must show different result)
Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1993) (carelessness by counsel insufficient for 60(b)(1))
Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1988) (Rule 60(b)(6) cannot be used to relitigate grounds covered by other subsections)
Willie v. Cont'l Oil Co., 746 F.2d 1041 (5th Cir. 1984) (notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction to court of appeals but district court may deny 60(b) motion)
Limon v. Double Eagle Marine LLC, 771 F. Supp. 2d 672 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (delay in filing Rule 60(b) weighs against movant)