Price v. Administrative Receiver for the Housing Authority of New Orleans
670 F. App'x 259
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Ora, Leonard, and Darryl Price were lifetime residents of Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO) public housing and were evicted in state court.
- The Prices, pro se, sued in federal district court naming HANO, its receiver, contractors, a law firm, employees, and a state judge.
- The district court dismissed most defendants on grounds including judicial immunity, lack of state action, and Rooker–Feldman; on March 25, 2015 it dismissed the entire case without prejudice citing federal subject-matter jurisdiction concerns.
- More than a year later (Mar. 30, 2016) the Prices filed a motion to set aside/vacate the dismissal; the district court treated it as a Rule 60(b)(1) motion and denied it as untimely on May 20, 2016.
- The Prices appealed on June 10, 2016, primarily challenging the March 25, 2015 dismissal. The Fifth Circuit first addressed whether the appeal was timely and whether it had jurisdiction to review the underlying dismissal.
- The Fifth Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review the original dismissal because the Prices failed to file a timely notice of appeal, and it affirmed the denial of the Rule 60(b)(1) motion because legal error claims must be raised on direct appeal, not in Rule 60(b)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the March 25, 2015 dismissal | Prices argued district court wrongly dismissed for lack of federal-question jurisdiction and sought review | Appellees argued the Prices failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the dismissal | Court: No jurisdiction — the March 25, 2015 dismissal was final and the Prices' appeal was untimely |
| Whether the March 30, 2016 motion should be treated as a Rule 60(b) motion | Prices sought to vacate the dismissal for legal error (lack of federal-question jurisdiction) | District court treated motion as Rule 60(b)(1) because it was filed after the 28-day Rule 59(e) period | Court: Motion properly viewed as Rule 60(b)(1) given timing and content |
| Whether the Rule 60(b)(1) motion was timely | Prices argued relief and timing preserved review | Appellees and district court argued motion was untimely under Rule 60(c)(1) (filed more than a year after judgment) | Court: Need not decide timeliness; even if timely, Rule 60(b)(1) was improper vehicle to raise legal error previously appealable |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(1) may be used to challenge alleged legal error by the district court | Prices sought to relitigate alleged legal error about subject-matter jurisdiction via Rule 60(b)(1) | Appellees argued Rule 60(b)(1) is not a substitute for a timely appeal of legal error | Court: Denied relief — Rule 60(b)(1) inappropriate to challenge legal error that should have been raised on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is jurisdictional)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (established prohibition on federal courts reversing state court judgments)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (limits on federal review of state court judgments)
- Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470 (denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is appealable separately from the underlying judgment)
- United States v. 329.73 Acres of Land, More or Less, 695 F.2d 922 (Rule 60(b)(1) not a substitute for timely appeal of legal error)
- Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177 (motions outside Rule 59(e) treated as Rule 60(b))
- Ta Chi Navigation (Pan.) Corp. S.A. v. United States, 728 F.2d 699 (appeal from Rule 60(b) denial does not bring up the underlying judgment for review)
- Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983 (timeliness of appeal as jurisdictional requirement)