Michael Davis v. Donald Moroney
857 F.3d 748
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Michael Davis, an inmate, sued guard Donald Moroney under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged excessive force and sued other prison officials for conspiring to block his grievances.
- District court allowed the excessive-force claim against Moroney but dismissed the conspiracy claim and repeatedly denied Davis’s requests for appointed counsel after finding he hadn’t shown reasonable efforts to obtain counsel.
- Davis has asserted severe intellectual limitations (low IQ, ~6th-grade reading level, diagnosed/paranoid delusional disorder) and inability to manage filings without assistance; inmate affidavits corroborated these claims.
- Moroney served detailed interrogatories about Davis’s exhaustion of administrative remedies; Davis largely failed to answer despite multiple court orders and warnings, and the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
- Davis moved for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) and (6), arguing his mental impairments and the district court’s handling (including a nine‑month delay) created extraordinary circumstances; the district court denied relief.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding Davis’s intellectual disabilities and the court’s handling created extraordinary circumstances justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6), and remanded for further proceedings (including consideration of appointed counsel).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief is warranted from dismissal for failure to prosecute | Davis argued exceptional circumstances (severe intellectual limitations, illiteracy, lack of counsel, court delays) justify relief | Moroney argued prejudice from Davis’s failure to respond to discovery and that dismissal was appropriate | Reversed: extraordinary circumstances (Davis’s disabilities + court handling) justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6) |
| Whether district court abused discretion by refusing to recruit counsel | Davis said he diligently sought counsel and could not competently litigate without counsel | District court said Davis hadn’t shown reasonable efforts and claim wasn’t complex; Moroney pointed to missed deadlines | Court found district judge failed to properly consider Davis’s competence and efforts; recruitment of counsel should have been seriously considered on remand |
| Whether failure to answer interrogatories justified dismissal despite plaintiff’s disabilities | Moroney contended unanswered interrogatories prejudiced his defense and supported dismissal | Davis argued interrogatories were beyond his capacity and much of the information was accessible to defendants/prison records | Court held the interrogatories imposed unreasonable burden on a mentally impaired plaintiff and judge gave them too much weight; dismissal was not appropriate without considering disability and assistance needs |
| Impact of district-court delay and handling on fairness of proceedings | Davis said judge’s nine-month delay and procedural handling impeded his ability to prosecute | Moroney emphasized procedural noncompliance by Davis | Court held delays and handling contributed materially to plaintiff’s difficulties and supported relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Donald v. Cook County Sheriff’s Dept., 95 F.3d 548 (7th Cir.) (district-court handling may cause litigant’s inability to proceed; extraordinary circumstances)
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (framework for evaluating appointment of counsel for indigent prisoners)
- Tolliver v. Northrop Corp., 786 F.2d 316 (7th Cir.) (appellate review when district court omits relevant factors)
- Ramirez v. United States, 799 F.3d 845 (7th Cir.) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief in extraordinary cases)
- Bakery Machinery & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570 F.3d 845 (7th Cir.) (Rule 60(b) characterized as extraordinary remedy)
- Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070 (7th Cir.) (crediting plaintiff for attempts to obtain counsel)