944 F.3d 63
2d Cir.2019Background
- Milburn filed a pro se complaint in 1979 alleging constitutionally inadequate medical care at Green Haven; a class of “all persons who are or will be confined at Green Haven” was certified in 1980 and a consent decree was entered in 1982 and modified in 1991 to reform medical care.
- A court‑appointed medical auditor (Dr. Cohen) monitored compliance for decades; he reported Green Haven in compliance in 2014.
- Defendants moved in 2014 to terminate the consent decree under the PLRA; class counsel initially opposed but in March 2015 withdrew opposition and the district court terminated the decree without notifying most class members or having any named class representatives incarcerated at Green Haven.
- In 2016 inmate Samuel Irvin (a class member) filed a pro se Rule 60(b)(4) motion arguing the termination was void for lack of adequate representation and violation of due process; the district court denied relief, concluding Irvin lacked standing and his motion was untimely.
- The Second Circuit reversed: it held Irvin could invoke Rule 60(b) as a nonparty given the extraordinary circumstances and that termination violated Rule 23(a)(4) and the Due Process Clause because named representatives were not adequate during the termination proceedings; case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to invoke Rule 60(b) to challenge termination | Irvin: as a class member whose interests are directly affected and who lacked notice, he may seek relief; Devlin-type arguments | District court: nonnamed class members are not parties and thus lack Rule 60(b) standing | Court: Irvin has nonparty standing under Dunlop/Grace exception because he was sufficiently connected and his interests were strongly affected when no named reps remained incarcerated |
| Adequacy of class representation (Rule 23(a)(4) / Due Process) | Irvin: named reps were no longer Green Haven inmates and counsel withdrew opposition without adequately representing absent members | Defendants: class counsel’s actions were sufficient; no further process required | Court: representation was inadequate; termination violated Rule 23(a)(4) and Due Process; judgment is void |
| Timeliness of Rule 60(b) motion | Irvin: moved under Rule 60(b)(4) (voidness), which is not subject to the one‑year limitation and may be brought within a reasonable time | District court: construed motion under 60(b)(1)/(3) and denied as untimely; alternatively 60(b)(6) not met | Court: did not enforce 60(c) one‑year bar for 60(b)(4) and treated the voidness claim as cognizable; relief is not discretionary for void judgments |
| Remedy / next steps | Irvin: vacatur of termination and reinstatement or new process with adequate representation and opportunity to show ongoing violations | Defendants: maintain termination should stand | Court: reversed denial, declared termination void, remanded for substitution of adequate representatives or other measures and for the class to be given an opportunity to show current violations before any termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002) (non‑named class members who timely object at fairness hearings may have rights to challenge settlements)
- Dunlop v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 672 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1982) (nonparties may invoke Rule 60(b)(6) when sufficiently connected and inadequately represented)
- Grace v. Bank Leumi Tr. Co. of N.Y., 443 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2006) (nonparty standing where judgment strongly affects interests and representation was deficient)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (class representative requirements and commonality principles)
- Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940) (class members not bound absent adequate representation)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985) (Due Process requires named plaintiffs adequately represent absent class members)
- Robinson v. Metro‑North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2001) (adequacy inquiry: absence of conflict and assurance of vigorous prosecution)
- Nat’l Super Spuds, Inc. v. N.Y. Mercantile Exch., 660 F.2d 9 (2d Cir. 1981) (named plaintiffs can represent only shared class interests)
- Benjamin v. Jacobson, 172 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 1999) (en banc) (class must be given opportunity to show current and ongoing violations before termination)