Amawi v. Walton, 3:13-cv-00866

Mohammad Zaki Amawi, a federal prisoner, sought an extension to object to Magistrate Judge Daly’s Report recommending dismissal of his claims; he received the Report on November 28, 2016.
Amawi filed for an extension nearly three weeks later and separately moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)/(b) for relief from the Court’s denial.
He explained delay by lack of postage/writing materials and restricted access to legal materials while in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) from Sept. 26 to Dec. 1, 2016, and reliance on staff to mail his correspondence.
The district court treated the motion as one under Rule 60(b), reviewed the Report de novo as a precaution, and reiterated that Amawi’s delay in seeking an extension was unjustified because he waited nearly three weeks after release to ask for extra time.
The court found Amawi failed to identify the “exceptional circumstances” required for Rule 60(b) relief and concluded prior substantive rulings (qualified immunity on the procedural-due-process claim and lack of evidence on the equal-protection claim) were correct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of motion to extend objections	Amawi: SHU confinement, lack of postage/materials, no access to legal files justified delay	Defendants: No excuse for waiting weeks after release to request extension	Court: Denied extension — waiting nearly three weeks after release was unreasonable
Rule 60(b) reconsideration standard	Amawi: Court should reconsider denial and earlier judgment given SHU conditions and alleged errors	Defendants: Rule 60(b) requires exceptional circumstances; Amawi offered none	Court: Denied Rule 60(b) relief — no exceptional circumstances; not a vehicle for rehashing errors
Count 1 — Procedural due process / liberty deprivation	Amawi: Placement in restrictive housing at USP‑Marion deprived liberty; entitled to relief	Defendants: Placement did not violate clearly established law; qualified immunity applies	Court: Agreed with defendants — not clearly established at relevant time; summary judgment proper on qualified immunity grounds
Count 2 — Equal protection (religious discrimination)	Amawi: Muslims were discriminated against in housing placement and retention	Defendants: No evidence those deciding housing had discriminatory intent or influence	Court: Dismissed — plaintiff failed to cure evidentiary gaps identifying decisionmakers with discriminatory motives

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and limited)
McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319 (7th Cir. 2000) (discussing standards for Rule 60(b) relief)
Dickerson v. Board of Education, 32 F.3d 1114 (7th Cir. 1994) (Rule 60(b) cannot be used to relitigate old arguments)
Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of General Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 1995) (distinguishing mistakes from legal errors for Rule 60(b))
Rutledge v. United States, 230 F.3d 1041 (7th Cir. 2000) (limitations on Rule 60(b) relief)
In re Oil Spill by "Amoco Cadiz," 794 F. Supp. 261 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (Rule 60(b) principles; not a vehicle for rehashing issues)
Aref v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 242 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (addressed conditions-based liberty claims; cited by Amawi but postdating defendants’ conduct)