321 F.R.D. 1
D.D.C.2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jeremy (Jenny) Pinson filed FOIA claims against DOJ seeking records from BOP; case filed in 2012 and progressed through multiple motions.
- DOJ filed a second motion for partial summary judgment on February 3, 2016, as to remaining BOP-related requests; court issued a Fox/Neal warning requiring a response by March 7, 2016.
- Pinson obtained a 60-day extension; new response deadline was May 18, 2016. She was transferred in mid-March 2016 from Florence, CO to Allenwood, PA and contends the dispositive motion papers were not delivered to her after the move.
- Pinson admits she “overlooked” that the dispositive motion was missing and did not file a response by the May 18 deadline; nearly a month later the court granted DOJ’s motion in part as conceded.
- On August 26, 2016 Pinson moved to vacate the August 10, 2016 interlocutory order under Rules 59 and 60; court treated motion as one for reconsideration under Rule 54(b).
- Court denied reconsideration, finding Pinson failed to show that non-delivery excused her obligation to monitor the docket or that justice required revising the interlocutory order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should vacate/ reconsider interlocutory partial summary judgment | Pinson: she did not receive the DOJ’s dispositive motion after transfer and would have timely responded if she had | DOJ: Pinson had ample notice and time (motion filed before transfer), she had the Fox/Neal order and extension, and she should have monitored the docket | Denied — construed as Rule 54(b) reconsideration; Pinson did not justify relief or show prejudice from non-delivery |
| Proper procedural vehicle for relief | Pinson invoked Rules 59/60 | DOJ responded under Rules 59/60 | Court: neither Rule 59 nor 60 applies to interlocutory order; motion treated under Rule 54(b) |
| Whether inadvertent non-receipt/forgetting warrants relief | Pinson: non-delivery explains failure to respond | DOJ: mere forgetfulness or failure to monitor docket insufficient | Denied — parties must monitor docket; forgetting is not a basis for reconsideration |
| Whether incomplete factual submission (non-delivery claim) requires revision | Pinson: court lacked complete info about transfer and non-delivery | DOJ: Pinson did not allege she never saw key orders and did not act promptly to seek relief | Denied — even with complete info, result would be same; no justice requires revision |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Dover v. EPA, 40 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C.) (interlocutory partial summary judgment treated as non-final)
- Alaska v. FERC, 980 F.2d 761 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (partial summary judgments are generally interlocutory)
- Lemmons v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 241 F.R.D. 15 (D.D.C. 2007) (standards for Rule 54(b) reconsideration)
- Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266 (D.D.C. 2004) (Rule 54(b) affords broader discretion than Rules 59/60)
- Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility, 309 F.R.D. 94 (D.D.C. 2015) (pro se prisoner’s failure to monitor docket not excused by incarceration)
- Halmon v. Jones Lang Wootton USA, 355 F. Supp. 2d 239 (D.D.C. 2005) (parties must monitor court docket)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (standards for relief under Rule 59(e))