737 F.3d 473
7th Cir.2013Background
- Williams filed a 2011 § 1983/Illinois-law complaint listing 100+ defendants, including the State of Illinois and university entities.
- Defendants were never served; after 13+ months the district court dismissed for lack of prosecution due to non-service.
- Magistrate Judge warned Williams to show service or explain delays; Williams claimed university delays in providing names/addresses impeded service.
- Williams attempted waivers of service in Oct 2012; when no action occurred, the magistrate recommended dismissal; district court adopted and dismissed.
- District court held Williams bore the burden to identify defendants' names/addresses and could have served governmental defendants but did not; later motions failed under Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e).
- On appeal, Williams challenged the Rule 60(b) treatment, the dismissal for failure to prosecute, and asserted possible judicial prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams’s post-judgment motion was properly analyzed under Rule 60(b). | Rule 60(b) was applicable and adequate relief. | Rule 60(b) requirements and deadlines apply; improper extension via Rule 6(d). | Rule 60(b) proper; no abuse of discretion; deadlines do not extend by Rule 6(d). |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed for lack of prosecution for failure to obtain service. | Williams diligently attempted service and could have been litigating despite delays. | Delay in service over 16 months demonstrates failure to prosecute; dismissal appropriate. | Affirmed dismissal for want of prosecution. |
| Whether Rule 6(d) extends time for a Rule 59(e) motion after entry of judgment. | Three extra days due to service of notice. | Rule 6(d) extension only applies when time runs from service of notice, not entry of judgment. | Rule 6(d) does not extend the deadline for Rule 59(e) motions. |
| Whether Williams’ claim of judicial prejudice requires reversal. | Judge McDade was prejudiced due to a prior ethics complaint. | Adverse rulings do not establish personal prejudice; no demonstrable bias in record. | No clear error; no showing of personal prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Justice v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 682 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2012) (bright-line rule for interpreting post-judgment motions as motions to vacate)
- Kiswani v. Phoenix Sec. Agency, Inc., 584 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2009) (treatment of post-judgment motions after deadline as motions to vacate)
- Jackson v. Crosby, 375 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2004) (Rule 6(d) does not extend Rule 59(e) deadlines)
- Albright v. Virtue, 273 F.3d 564 (3d Cir. 2001) (Rule 6(d) extension not available for Rule 59(e) motions)
- O’Rourke Bros. Inc. v. Nesbitt Burns, Inc., 201 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 2000) (dismissal for failure to prosecute based on prolonged service delays)