Bryan v. Berryhill
1:17-cv-00071
W.D.N.C.May 31, 2017Background
- Bryan filed a Social Security review action and an IFP application; the Court denied IFP and gave 30 days to pay the $400 filing fee.
- Bryan paid $400 to her attorney in two $200 installments before the deadline, but counsel failed to forward the check to the Clerk.
- The case was dismissed without prejudice 41 days after the IFP denial for failure to pay the filing fee.
- Bryan moved for relief from judgment within 28 days; the Court treated the motion as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.
- The Court found counsel’s admitted oversight constituted excusable neglect, vacated the dismissal to avoid manifest injustice, ordered Bryan to file the $400 within five days, and admonished counsel about future compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should set aside the dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee | Bryan: counsel received fee before deadline; counsel’s inadvertent failure to forward it is excusable neglect and warrants vacatur | Commissioner (implicit): dismissal for nonpayment was proper under the Court’s order and warning | Vacated the dismissal under Rule 59(e): counsel’s excusable neglect and manifest injustice justified relief |
| Whether a Rule 59(e) standard applies to the post-judgment motion | Bryan: motion filed within 28 days and challenges correctness of judgment | Commissioner: (no separate argument presented) | Court construed the motion as Rule 59(e) and applied that standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403 (4th Cir.) (post-judgment motion filed within 28 days that questions judgment is treated as Rule 59(e))
- MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of Southern Pines, 532 F.3d 269 (4th Cir.) (same rule on post-judgment motion treatment)
- Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807 (4th Cir.) (same principle regarding Rule 59(e))
- Pacific Ins. Co. v. American Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396 (4th Cir.) (three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e))
- Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (U.S.) (statute of limitations in §405(g) is a statute of limitations and equitable tolling may apply)
- Cleaton v. Secretary, Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 815 F.2d 295 (4th Cir.) (discussing timeliness under §405(g))
- Bost v. Fed. Express Corp., 372 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir.) (dismissal without prejudice does not permit refiling after statute of limitations expires)