Ronald Robinson v. Ed Sweeny
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12682
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Robinson, a pro se prisoner, sued jail guards under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference after he was attacked while being transported from a court hearing.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; final judgment entered on November 8 (context shows December 4 & December dates referenced for deadlines).
- Robinson filed a motion on December 30 requesting an extension to file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion; Rule 6(b)(2) prohibits extending time to file a Rule 59(e) motion.
- The district judge irregularly construed the December 30 filing as a Rule 59(e) motion and gave Robinson 30 days to supplement; Robinson missed that supplemental deadline.
- Robinson later filed another postjudgment motion which the judge treated as a Rule 60(b) motion and denied; Robinson then filed a notice of appeal on April 24.
- The Seventh Circuit held Robinson missed the timely Rule 59(e) and appeal-filing windows, so the appellate court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Robinson timely filed a Rule 59(e) motion that tolled the appeal period | Robinson argued his December 30 filing sought more time to file a proper Rule 59(e) motion and should be treated as tolling | Defendants argued Rule 6(b)(2) bars extending the time to file Rule 59(e) so the December 30 filing was not a proper Rule 59(e) motion | Held: December 30 motion was not a valid Rule 59(e); Robinson missed the 28-day deadline, so no tolling |
| Whether the district court's construction of filings cured the timeliness defect | Robinson relied on the judge construing filings as Rule 59(e) motions to preserve his rights | Defendants relied on strict application of deadlines and Rule 6(b)(2) to bar extension | Held: Judicial recharacterization did not revive a missed Rule 59(e) deadline; appellate jurisdiction absent timely tolling was lacking |
| Whether a subsequent Rule 60(b) motion preserved the right to appeal the summary judgment | Robinson contended the later motion justified relief or preserved appellate review | Defendants maintained Rule 60(b) does not extend the Rule 59(e) or appeal deadlines and cannot resurrect jurisdiction | Held: Rule 60(b) motion did not preserve the appeal period; time to appeal had expired |
| Whether procedural mistakes by pro se litigants justify equitable relief or notice from courts | Robinson asserted his pro se status, limited legal access, and confusion justified leniency or guidance | Defendants argued pro se litigants are held to procedural rules and deadlines | Held: Court declined to excuse the missed deadlines but urged that district judges consider advising pro se litigants of appellate/reconsideration options and deadlines |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 159, 676 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2012) (Rule 6(b)(2) bars extending time to file a Rule 59(e) motion)
- Elustra v. Mineo, 595 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2010) (timing of postjudgment motions affects appeal period calculation)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (pro se litigants are bound by procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation)