Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496

Aikens, a former NC Army National Guard colonel, alleged Fourth Amendment violations from interception of his emails by intraservice actors during deployment in Kuwait.
District court dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust intra-military remedies via ABCMR.
Aikens pursued ABCMR relief, which declined to provide the requested relief as not within its purview.
After the ABCMR decision, Aikens sought relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), arguing the exhaustion ruling was erroneous.
The district court denied the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding no abuse of discretion.
Dissenting opinions argued the court should grant relief to avoid manifest injustice and permit merits adjudication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief was proper	Aikens—Aikens argued extraordinary circumstances due to district court's exhaustion ruling.	Ingram and von Jess—district court acted within discretion; exhaustion was required.	No abuse of discretion; relief denied.
Whether exhaustion was required or futile	Aikens claimed ABCMR lacked jurisdiction to provide relief; exhaustion futile.	Exhaustion required unless futility established.	Exhaustion not excused; district court did not err.
Whether alternative paths (appeal/stay/new action) were available	Aikens could have appealed or stayed or filed a new action after exhaustion.	Procedural routes available; Rule 60(b)(6) not a substitute for appeal.	Court did not abuse discretion given available avenues and timing.
Whether the district court should have treated the Rule 60(b)(6) motion as a new complaint	Aikens argued Rule 60(b)(6) relief was warranted to cure the court’s error.	Motion was inappropriate as a substitute for a new complaint.	Not an abuse of discretion; not treated as new suit.

Williams v. Wilson, 762 F.2d 357 (4th Cir. 1985) (exhaustion requirement for military claims; exceptions for futility)
Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1949) (voluntary appeal lapse cannot be cured by Rule 60(b)(6) relief)
Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46 (4th Cir. 1993) (60(b) substitute for appeal when appropriate)
White v. Investors Mgmt. Corp., 888 F.2d 1036 (4th Cir. 1989) (extraordinary circumstances in erroneous judgments)
Compton v. Alton Steamship Co., 608 F.2d 96 (4th Cir. 1979) (extraordinary circumstances to grant 60(b)(6) relief)
Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) (strict interpretation of Rule 60(b)(6) but extraordinary cases allowed)
General American Tank Car Corp. v. El Dorado Terminal Co., 308 U.S. 422 (1940) (stay proceedings pending agency determination under primary jurisdiction)
Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258 (1993) (primary jurisdiction vs exhaustion distinction; stay vs dismissal)
Guerra v. Scruggs, 942 F.2d 270 (4th Cir. 1991) (exhaustion exceptions when outcome would be futile)