Bell v. Olson
2:21-cv-00781
| W.D. Wash. | Mar 18, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Warren E. Bell moved for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6) after the Court denied his motion to amend the complaint to assert claims against Snohomish County.
- The Court denied leave to amend because Bell failed to identify any specific County policy, custom, or practice giving rise to the alleged constitutional violations (characterizing his allegations as bare and conclusory).
- Bell contends the Washington DOC confiscated and refused to return materials (Washington State Patrol manuals) he mailed to his power of attorney, which prevented him from drafting a sufficient municipal-liability claim.
- The magistrate judge concluded the order denying leave to amend was interlocutory (the case remained pending and the Court indicated Bell could attempt to amend again), so Rule 60(b) relief was not available.
- The magistrate judge also found, even if the order were treated as final, Bell failed to show excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances: the confiscated WSP materials were not relevant to pleading Snohomish County municipal liability.
- Recommendation: Bell’s Rule 60(b) motion (Dkt. 50) should be denied. Objections to the report and recommendation were subject to the usual 14‑day deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of Rule 60(b) relief after denial of leave to amend | Bell: Court should grant relief under Rule 60(b) to revisit denial because DOC interference prevented him from pleading properly | County: The denial was interlocutory, not a final order, so Rule 60(b) is inapplicable | Court: Denial of leave to amend was not a final order; Rule 60(b) relief is unavailable |
| Merits of Rule 60(b)(1)/(6) relief (excusable neglect / extraordinary circumstances) | Bell: DOC confiscation of materials he sent to his power of attorney prevented him from alleging municipal policy/custom | County: Confiscated WSP materials are irrelevant to alleging a Snohomish County policy/custom; Bell shows no excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances | Court: Even if order were final, Bell failed to show materials would have cured the pleading deficiency; no basis for Rule 60(b) relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehman v. U.S., 154 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 1998) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires both injury and circumstances beyond a party’s control preventing timely action)
- Bynoe v. Baca, 966 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2020) (movant under Rule 60(b)(6) must show extraordinary circumstances to reopen judgment)
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Herrald, 434 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1970) (order denying leave to join a defendant and amend complaint that did not dispose of the action is not a final decision)
- Sherman v. Henderson, [citation="382 F. App'x 557"] (9th Cir. 2010) (Rule 60(b) motion is inappropriate when the challenged order was an interlocutory dismissal with leave to amend)