John Justice v. Town of Cicero
682 F.3d 662
7th Cir.2012Background
- In 2006 police seized six unregistered guns from Justice’s business; Justice sued and lost (Justice v. Cicero, 577 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2009)).
- In 2010 Justice filed another suit based on the same events, and he lost (Justice v. Cicero, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123187 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 2011)).
- Justice sought reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); deadline 28 days; timing could not be extended by Rule 6(b)(2).
- Justice filed the Rule 59(e) motion at 3:00 a.m. CST on November 23, 2011; district judge granted nunc pro tunc to November 22 but denied on the merits.
- Appeal timeliness depends on whether the 3:00 a.m. filing was timely without the district judge’s nunc pro tunc aid, given electronic filing rules.
- The court held that nunc pro tunc backdating to fix filing date is improper and analyzed Rule 6 and e-filing timing; the 3:00 a.m. filing was untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Justice’s Rule 59(e) motion timely filed? | Justice argues the filing was timely under e-filing rules and clerk’s handling. | Appellees contend the 3:00 a.m. filing was untimely; e-filing ends at midnight in the court’s time zone. | Untimely; filing did not occur by deadline. |
| Was the district court’s backdating by nunc pro tunc proper? | Nunc pro tunc could correct a clerical or timing error if justified. | Backdating to reflect an earlier filing is improper; it cannot revise history. | Improper use of nunc pro tunc; not allowed to backdate to create timely filing. |
| Does the Rule 60(b) relief standard apply to the appeal? | Untimely Rule 59 motion treated as Rule 60(b) motion; relief possible under extraordinary circumstances. | Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances not shown here. | Relief under Rule 60(b) not established; appeal limited to Rule 60 context if pursued. |
| Is the appeal jurisdictionally proper after the Rule 60 / 59(e) issues? | Notice of appeal timely for Rule 60 relief; jurisdiction preserved for that avenue. | Timeliness of appeal depends on Rule 4(a)(4) and whether the motion was timely under Rule 59. | Judgment review limited to denial of Rule 60 relief; otherwise premature. |
Key Cases Cited
- Royall v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 548 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (nunc pro tunc corrections cannot revise history, only correct records)
- Kusay v. United States, 62 F.3d 192 (7th Cir. 1995) (limit on nunc pro tunc authority)
- In re IFC Credit Corp., 663 F.3d 315 (7th Cir. 2011) (nunc pro tunc cannot substitute for relation back)
- Central Laborers’ Pension, Welfare & Annuity Funds v. Griffee, 198 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 1999) (nunc pro tunc limits)
- King v. Ionization International, Inc., 825 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir. 1987) (nunc pro tunc issues and standards)
- United States v. Suarez-Perez, 484 F.3d 537 (8th Cir. 2007) (nunc pro tunc principles)
- Farzana K. v. Indiana Department of Education, 473 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2007) (tendering document to e-filing deemed filed on day of tender)
- Vince v. Rock County, 604 F.3d 391 (7th Cir. 2010) (electronic filing filing date controls)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (S. Ct. 2005) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances)
- Metlyn Realty Corp. v. Esmark, Inc., 763 F.2d 826 (7th Cir. 1985) (deferential review of Rule 60 relief)
- Talano v. Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation, Inc., 273 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2001) (Rule 60 relief and standards)
- Jones v. McBride, 381 F.3d 587 (7th Cir. 2004) (one-day delay can cost rights in time-sensitive filings)