Philip Hughes v. Isidro Baca
692 F. App'x 884
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Philip Hughes, a Nevada state prisoner, appealed the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion seeking relief from dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 constitutional claims.
- Hughes claimed the district court should have reopened the time to file an appeal and that his complaint stated due process and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims warranting relief.
- The Rule 60(b)(6) motion was filed more than 180 days after entry of judgment.
- Hughes also argued the district judge should have recused sua sponte for alleged bias.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the Rule 60(b) denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by declining to reopen time to appeal | Hughes argued court should reopen appeal period because he lacked notice of judgment | District court argued Rule 4(a)(6) bars reopening after 180 days and parties must discover judgment | Court held no abuse of discretion; motion filed after 180-day outer limit, so reopening improper |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief was warranted on merits of constitutional claims | Hughes argued his complaint raised due process and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims meriting relief | District court found Hughes failed to show any basis for equitable relief under Rule 60(b)(6) | Court held no abuse of discretion; Rule 60(b)(6) relief properly denied (to be used sparingly) |
| Whether judge should have recused sua sponte | Hughes claimed extrajudicial bias/prejudice requiring recusal | District court noted no evidence of extrajudicial bias and no recusal motion was filed | Court held no error; Hughes failed to establish extrajudicial bias or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Ryan, 833 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2016) (interpreting Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) outer 180-day limit to reopen appeal time)
- In re Stein, 197 F.3d 421 (9th Cir. 1999) (parties must discover entry of judgment with or without notice to preserve appeal rights)
- Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rule 60(b)(6) is an extraordinary, sparingly used equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice)
- Noli v. Comm’r, 860 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir. 1988) (higher burden on appeal where no recusal motion was made below)