Robby Trevino v. City of Fort Worth
944 F.3d 567
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- Alisha Trevino died after ingesting methamphetamine while in Fort Worth police custody following a traffic stop; her family sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Earlier motions to dismiss by the officers were granted; this Court affirmed that judgment on December 19, 2018.
- On January 8, 2019 the City moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); Plaintiffs did not respond because counsel failed to monitor the case, failed to register for the court’s CM/ECF system, and said antivirus software routed court emails to spam.
- Counsel admitted the failures were within their “reasonable control” and violated local rules. The district court granted the unopposed motion on February 4, 2019.
- Plaintiffs moved for relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) 27 days later; the district court denied both forms of relief, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding neither manifest error nor excusable neglect was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 59(e) relief is warranted (manifest error of law or fact) | System breakdowns and failure to receive filings amount to a manifest error requiring amendment of judgment | Failure to file is not a manifest error; counsel violated local rules and bears responsibility | Denied — failure to respond and counsel negligence do not constitute manifest error |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(1) relief is warranted (mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect) | The stay, failure to register for CM/ECF, and emails routed to spam constitute excusable neglect | Plaintiffs had a duty to monitor the case and register for e-filing; gross carelessness and ignorance of rules are insufficient | Denied — equitable excusable-neglect standard unmet; counsel’s carelessness and spam-filtering do not justify relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2012) (discussing grounds for Rule 59(e) relief)
- Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (failure to file response is not a basis for Rule 59(e) relief)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (excusable-neglect is an equitable, totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry)
- Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1993) (party has a duty of diligence; gross carelessness insufficient for relief)
- Knapp v. Dow Corning Corp., 941 F.2d 1336 (5th Cir. 1991) (counsel’s carelessness or misapprehension of rules does not justify reopening under Rule 60(b))
- Onwuchekwe v. Okeke, [citation="404 F. App'x 911"] (5th Cir. 2010) (emails sent to a spam folder do not constitute excusable neglect)