David Thomas v. Daniel Schlosser
670 F. App'x 56
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- In 1997 David Thomas filed three civil-rights suits arising from a June 25, 1996 shoplifting/arrest incident; the District Court dismissed those complaints in 1997–1998.
- Nearly 20 years later (April 2016) Thomas filed identical one-page motions to reopen each case and, in two actions, proposed amended complaints.
- The motions did not explain why reopening was warranted or why they were brought after such a long delay.
- The District Court denied the motions to reopen and denied leave to amend, finding no basis to grant relief and emphasizing undue delay.
- Thomas appealed; the Third Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the District Court’s judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-judgment motions to reopen are timely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) | Thomas sought reopening without invoking a specific Rule; effectively asked for relief from judgment | Motions were filed more than 15 years after judgment and are untimely under Rule 60(b)(1)–(3) and unreasonable under 60(b)(5)–(6) | Denied — motions untimely and not filed within a reasonable time |
| Whether the motions qualify under Rule 60(b)(4) (jurisdictional defect) | Implied claim for relief without specifying a jurisdictional defect | No claim or showing that the court lacked subject-matter or personal jurisdiction or entered an ultra vires decree | Denied — Rule 60(b)(4) inapplicable; no jurisdictional defect shown |
| Whether extraordinary circumstances justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6) | Requested reopening but failed to identify extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship | No facts alleged to show extraordinary or unexpected hardship warranting equitable relief | Denied — plaintiff did not show extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether leave to amend post-judgment should be granted | Sought to file amended complaints alleging events from 1996–97 | Amendment unduly delayed; plaintiff had earlier opportunities and gave no explanation for waiting ~20 years | Denied — undue delay; District Court properly refused amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2002) (standard of review and construing pro se motions under Rule 60)
- United States v. One Toshiba Color TV, 213 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2000) (Rule 60(b)(4) time-limits exception for jurisdictional defects)
- Moolenaar v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 822 F.2d 1342 (3d Cir. 1987) (delay can render Rule 60(b)(6) relief unreasonable)
- Cox v. Horn, 757 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2014) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances and extreme hardship)
- Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2011) (standards for post-judgment motions to amend pleadings)
- Cureton v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 252 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2001) (undue delay justifies denial of leave to amend)