Jane Luna v. Ricky Bell
887 F.3d 290
6th Cir.2018Background
- In 2010 Charles Jason Toll died after a cell extraction at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution; his mother, Jane Luna, sued correctional officers Doss and Horton for excessive force and Warden Bell for failure to train under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- A jury trial in 2013 returned verdicts for defendants and the district court entered judgment for defendants; Luna moved for a new trial which was denied.
- A 2014 New York Times article revealed a previously undisclosed resignation letter from extraction team member William Amonette alleging falsified training records and retaliation; defendants had not produced the letter in discovery.
- Luna moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) for relief based on the newly discovered letter; the first district court granted relief, vacated the judgments, and ordered a new trial.
- Subsequent motions for reconsideration by defendants were denied by two successor district judges; defendants also sought sanctions for nondisclosure but the magistrate and later court declined to impose them.
- The third district court later granted summary judgment to defendants; the Sixth Circuit affirmed the 60(b)(2) relief and denials of reconsideration but reversed the summary judgment and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(2) relief is warranted for newly discovered evidence (Amonette letter) | Luna: exercised due diligence in discovery; letter is material and would likely change outcome | Defs: letter is merely impeaching or cumulative; Luna could have obtained it with more diligence | Court: Affirmed 60(b)(2) relief — Luna was diligent and letter was material and controlling under the rule |
| Whether sanctions were appropriate for defendants’ failure to produce the letter | Luna: nondisclosure warrants sanctions | Defs: nondisclosure not in bad faith; Luna knew of the letter from deposition | Court: Denial of sanctions affirmed; knowledge at deposition weighed against extraordinary sanctions |
| Whether denial of reconsideration of the 60(b)(2) order was proper | Luna: no reconsideration needed; 60(b)(2) ruling valid | Defs: sought reconsideration based on purported errors | Court: Denials affirmed — no abuse of discretion to refuse reconsideration |
| Whether summary judgment for defendants was proper after the 60(b)(2) order vacated the verdict | Luna: vacatur restored fact issues; summary judgment inappropriate because material disputes remain, including those raised by the letter | Defs: argued new evidence insufficient to alter liability and summary judgment appropriate | Held: Reversed summary judgment — vacatur requires treating facts as undetermined and summary judgment improper given disputed material facts |
Key Cases Cited
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. First American Title Insurance Co., 750 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2014) (standard for Rule 60(b)(2) relief: due diligence and materiality by clear and convincing evidence)
- Good v. Ohio Edison Co., 149 F.3d 413 (6th Cir. 1998) (newly discovered evidence must not be merely impeaching or cumulative)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant at summary judgment)
- Miller v. United States, 173 F.2d 922 (6th Cir. 1949) (granting a new trial vacates prior verdict and leaves issues of fact undetermined)
- Slocum v. New York Life Insurance Co., 228 U.S. 364 (1913) (vacatur of verdict leaves no judgment on the merits until retried)