Sherrod v. Solomon
5:14-ct-03252
E.D.N.C.Nov 3, 2017Background
- Marion L. Sherrod, a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on September 25, 2014.
- The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on September 18, 2017.
- Sherrod filed a notice of appeal and a motion for reconsideration on September 29, 2017.
- The court determined it retained jurisdiction to consider the motion because the appeal became effective only after disposition of remaining post-judgment motions.
- Sherrod sought relief under Rule 59(e) (alter or amend judgment) and alternatively under Rule 60(b)(1) and (3) (mistake/excusable neglect; fraud/misrepresentation).
- The court found Sherrod did not show an intervening change in law, new evidence, or a clear error of law, nor did he meet Rule 60(b)’s threshold requirements (timeliness, meritorious claim/defense, lack of unfair prejudice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) | Sherrod sought reconsideration of the summary-judgment ruling | Defendants opposed reconsideration; judgment should stand | Denied — Sherrod did not show change in controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or clear error to justify Rule 59(e) relief |
| Whether relief is available under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) for mistake/inadvertence/excusable neglect | Sherrod alternatively sought relief under Rule 60(b)(1) | Defendants argued Rule 60(b) threshold not met | Denied — Sherrod failed to show a meritorious claim or defense and did not satisfy Rule 60(b) thresholds |
| Whether relief is available under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) for fraud/misrepresentation/misconduct | Sherrod sought relief under Rule 60(b)(3) | Defendants denied any misconduct and argued Sherrod’s motion was deficient | Denied — Sherrod did not meet Rule 60(b) threshold requirements and did not establish grounds for relief |
| Whether the court retained jurisdiction to rule on the motion after the notice of appeal | Sherrod’s appeal was filed after judgment but before the motion was ruled on | Defendants presumably argued appeal divested jurisdiction | Held the court retained jurisdiction because the appeal becomes effective only after disposition of remaining post-judgment motions |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Tobacco Workers’ Int’l Union, 577 F.2d 1135 (4th Cir. 1978) (appeal generally divests district court of jurisdiction)
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (notice of appeal effects on district-court jurisdiction)
- Zinkand v. Brown, 478 F.3d 634 (4th Cir. 2007) (standards for Rule 59(e) relief)
- Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d 548 (4th Cir. 2005) (grounds for altering or amending judgment)
- Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639 (4th Cir. 2002) (district court’s discretion under Rule 59(e))
- Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376 (4th Cir. 1995) (Rule 59(e) standards)
- Nat’l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Gray, 1 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 1993) (threshold requirements for Rule 60(b))
- Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc. v. Fodor Contracting Corp., 843 F.2d 808 (4th Cir. 1988) (procedural prerequisites for Rule 60(b) relief)