309 F.R.D. 94
D.D.C.2015Background
- Pro se plaintiff Oladayo Oladokun filed a negligence-in-medical-care complaint removed to federal court; several defendants remained after USMS was dismissed.
- Court issued a January 28, 2014 Scheduling Order requiring attendance at a September 8, 2014 status conference; Oladokun failed to appear.
- The Court issued an Order to Show Cause (response due October 6, 2014); the docket shows the Order was mailed to Oladokun at the D.C. Jail on September 25, 2014.
- Oladokun later filed change-of-address notices and asserted he did not receive the Order to Show Cause in time because mail had been sent to his unoccupied home; he contends defense counsel knew his whereabouts and misled the Court.
- The Court dismissed the action without prejudice on October 28, 2014 for failure to prosecute and violation of the Scheduling Order.
- Oladokun moved for reconsideration/reopening under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) (motions filed in Jan–May 2015); defendants opposed. The Court denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under Rule 59(e) | Oladokun sought to alter the October 28, 2014 judgment (filed motions in Jan–May 2015). | Motion is untimely because Rule 59(e) requires filing within 28 days and courts cannot extend that deadline. | Denied as to Rule 59(e): motions filed after 28 days are time-barred. |
| Rule 60(b)(1) — excusable neglect/inadvertence | He did not receive the Order to Show Cause in time due to mail delivery issues and incarceration transfers. | The docket and counsel’s declarations show notice was mailed and counsel informed him; plaintiff had opportunity and failed to act. | Denied: plaintiff failed to show excusable neglect or adequate reason for delay; fault was dispositive. |
| Rule 60(b)(3) — fraud/misrepresentation | Defense counsel misrepresented plaintiff’s whereabouts at the Sept. 8, 2014 conference, preventing fair presentation. | Counsel accurately informed the Court she was unsure of his whereabouts; plaintiff’s assertions are unsupported. | Denied: no clear-and-convincing evidence of misconduct and no showing of actual prejudice. |
| Rule 60(b)(6) — extraordinary circumstances | Reopening is warranted because of alleged notice failures and counsel misconduct. | Plaintiff’s claims rest on grounds covered by (b)(1)–(b)(3); no extraordinary or previously undisclosed fact shown. | Denied: (b)(6) is unavailable where other clauses apply and plaintiff has not shown extraordinary circumstances or manifest injustice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (equitable excusable-neglect framework for Rule 60(b)(1))
- In re Vitamins Antitrust Class Actions, 327 F.3d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (applying Pioneer to Rule 60(b)(1) review)
- Salazar ex rel. Salazar v. Dist. of Columbia, 633 F.3d 1110 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Rule 60(b)(6) limited to extraordinary circumstances; not available if other clauses apply)
- Jarvis v. Parker, 13 F. Supp. 3d 74 (D.D.C. 2014) (movant bears burden to show entitlement to Rule 60 relief)
- Walsh v. Hagee, 10 F. Supp. 3d 15 (D.D.C. 2013) (requirements for Rule 60(b)(3): clear-and-convincing proof of misconduct and actual prejudice)