Lunn v. Detroit, City of, 2:19-cv-13578

Dana Lunn was found unconscious in his vehicle by Detroit police officers in 2016 and was arrested for failing to disclose a concealed weapon.
Lunn complained that he was handcuffed too tightly during arrest, allegedly suffering injuries; charges against him were later dropped.
Lunn filed a pro se civil suit in 2019 against the City of Detroit, the Detroit Police Department, and police officers for state torts and federal constitutional violations.
All claims except excessive force were dismissed; the excessive force claim was dismissed when Lunn failed to amend his complaint by the court-ordered deadline.
After judgment in favor of the defendants, Lunn moved for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), then unsuccessfully appealed; years later, he filed a new motion to reopen the case under Rule 60(b), arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and new evidence of injury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Relief under Rule 60(b)(1) (attorney mistake)	Lederman, his attorney, mishandled the case and failed to communicate, prejudicing Lunn's claims.	Attorney error does not justify reopening judgment; only proper lawsuits are malpractice or grievances.	Denied; attorney error does not merit Rule 60(b) relief.
2. Relief under Rule 60(b)(2) (new evidence)	Lunn asserts new evidence of permanent injury from handcuffing.	Evidence was already available or in the record; not new or could have been presented earlier.	Denied; no new evidence, and procedural deadlines were missed.
3. Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) (catch-all)	Extraordinary circumstances justify relief due to ongoing harm and procedural unfairness.	No extraordinary circumstances; simply repeating past arguments.	Denied; no 'extraordinary circumstances' shown for Rule 60(b)(6) relief.
4. Timeliness of Motion	Motion should be granted despite delay due to continuing harm.	Motion is untimely under Rules 60(b)(1) and (2).	Denied; motion untimely.

McCurry ex rel. Turner v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 298 F.3d 586 (6th Cir. 2002) (attorney errors generally not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1))
Jinks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 250 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2001) (Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for direct appeal)
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 535 (2005) (Rule 60(b)(6) only applies for "extraordinary circumstances")
Burnley v. Bosch Americas Corp., 75 F. App’x 329 (6th Cir. 2003) (malpractice claims do not warrant Rule 60(b) relief)
Olle v. Henry & Wright Corp., 910 F.2d 357 (6th Cir. 1990) (Rule 60(b)(6) reserved for substantially unjust situations)