Roger Shuler v. Jessica Medeiros Garrison
718 F. App’x 825
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiffs Roger and Carol Shuler sued 28 (later 29) defendants in federal court over claims arising from foreclosure; they filed a First Amended Complaint on July 8, 2016.
- Judge Proctor dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice on January 13, 2017.
- The Shulers filed post-judgment motions: Rule 15 (leave to amend), Rule 59(e) (alter/amend judgment), and a broad recusal request; Judge Proctor initially denied recusal but then recused; the case was reassigned to Judge Hopkins.
- Judge Hopkins denied the Rule 15 and Rule 59(e) motions on February 27, 2017; the Shulers then moved under Rule 60 and for additional recusals, both denied.
- The Shulers appealed, but their notice of appeal specified only the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion; their appellate brief sought review of other orders (dismissal, Rule 15 denial, Rule 60 denial) beyond the notice of appeal.
- The Eleventh Circuit limited its review to the District Court’s denial of the Rule 59(e) motion and affirmed, holding the motion merely reargued previously dismissed claims and did not present newly discovered evidence or manifest error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review orders beyond the Rule 59(e) denial | Shuler contended broader rulings (dismissal, Rule 15 denial, Rule 60 denial) should be reviewed on appeal | Defendants argued the notice of appeal designated only the Rule 59(e) denial, limiting appellate jurisdiction under Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) | Appeal limited to the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion; no jurisdiction over other orders |
| Whether the Rule 59(e) motion warranted relief (reconsideration) | Shuler argued the dismissal relied on outdated pleading standard and alleged judge conflict warranting vacatur; thus reconsideration was required | Defendants argued the Rule 59(e) motion merely reargued prior claims and presented no new evidence or manifest error | Denial affirmed: Rule 59(e) cannot relitigate prior claims; plaintiffs offered no new evidence or manifest error |
| Whether Twombly pleading standard no longer applies (as argued by Shuler) | Shuler asserted Twombly is no longer followed and thus dismissal was erroneous | Defendants maintained Twombly remains controlling precedent in the Eleventh Circuit | Court confirmed Twombly remains good law in this Circuit |
| Whether alleged judicial conflict required vacatur under Liljeberg (as raised via Rule 60) | Shuler argued Judge Proctor’s conflict invalidated his orders and therefore dependent orders must be vacated | Defendants pointed out this was a Rule 60 claim not properly before the Court on this appeal | Court did not reach Rule 60 merits for lack of appellate jurisdiction over that denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc., 825 F.2d 1521 (11th Cir. 1987) (notice of appeal must designate the judgment or order appealed)
- C. A. May Marine Supply Co. v. Brunswick Corp., 649 F.2d 1049 (5th Cir. 1981) (appeal limited to matters expressly or impliedly designated)
- Finch v. City of Vernon, 845 F.2d 256 (11th Cir. 1988) (leniency for pro se litigants regarding technical appellate mistakes)
- Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1365 (11th Cir. 1983) (allowing some leniency for technical mistakes when intent to appeal is clear)
- Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237 (11th Cir. 1985) (standard of review for denial of Rule 59(e) is abuse of discretion)
- Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2007) (Rule 59(e) cannot be used to relitigate prior matters; relief limited to new evidence or manifest error)
- Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601 (7th Cir. 2000) (definition of manifest error as wholesale disregard or failure to recognize controlling precedent)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard affirmed as governing in this Circuit)
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) (grounds for vacatur when judge’s failure to recuse results in due process defect)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (adopting pre-1981 Fifth Circuit decisions as binding precedent)