Nichols v. Vilsack
Civil Action No. 2013-1502
| D.D.C. | Jun 5, 2017Background
- Barbara A. Nichols, a pro se plaintiff, sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture alleging employment discrimination (race, sex, age).
- The Court dismissed Nichols’s original complaint for failure to state a claim and allowed her to amend. (Nichols I)
- Nichols filed an amended complaint; the Court again dismissed it for failing to plead facts sufficient to state a plausible discrimination claim under Title VII and the ADEA and denied leave to amend a second time. (Nichols II)
- Nichols moved for reconsideration, arguing the Court overlooked material facts and lacked the complete record; she sought discovery and insisted the Court effectively granted summary judgment.
- The Court treated the motion under both Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) standards and concluded Nichols identified no intervening law, new evidence, clear error, or extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.
- The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, explaining that even if Nichols’s factual allegations were proven in discovery they would still be legally insufficient to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should alter or amend its judgment under Rule 59(e) | Nichols contends the Court failed to address material facts and issued a decision without the full record | USDA argues Nichols’s amended complaint still fails to plead plausible claims and no extraordinary circumstances exist | Denied — Nichols failed to show change in law, new evidence, or clear error required to amend judgment |
| Whether relief is warranted under Rule 60(b) | Nichols asserts mistakes and incomplete records justify reopening the judgment | USDA contends Nichols seeks a rehash of arguments and no Rule 60(b) ground (mistake, new evidence, fraud, or extraordinary circumstance) is met | Denied — Nichols did not meet the burden for Rule 60(b) relief; no extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether discovery should be allowed before dismissal | Nichols asks for discovery, arguing facts might support her claims if developed | USDA and Court maintain that even proven facts would be legally insufficient to survive dismissal | Denied — discovery unnecessary because pleading defects are dispositive |
| Whether Nichols may file another amended complaint | Nichols implicitly requests further opportunity to amend to cure deficiencies | USDA opposes further amendment after two dismissals | Denied — prior opinions already identified deficiencies and further amendment is not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (standards for Rule 59(e) relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Patton Boggs LLP v. Chevron Corp., 683 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Rule 59(e) is not for new legal theories)
- Am. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (construction of factual inferences at pleading stage)
- United Mine Workers of Am. 1974 Pension v. Pittston Co., 984 F.2d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (discretionary nature of Rule 60(b))
- Greer v. Paulson, 505 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Rule 60(b) does not permit retrial of matters)
- Cohen v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of D.C., 819 F.3d 476 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (extraordinary circumstances required for Rule 60(b)(6))
- Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Rule 60(b)(6) high threshold for relief)