274 F.R.D. 38
D.D.C.2011Background
- This is a DC District Court case where Trupei sued the United States and others; the court dismissed the case as conceded after the plaintiff failed to timely oppose the motion to dismiss (Jan. 30, 2009).
- Plaintiff moves for reconsideration over two years later, asserting Rule 59(e), Rule 60(b), and various non-statutory writs or foreign laws as bases for relief.
- Plaintiff argues newly discovered evidence shows the court did not receive his motion to stay and that the dismissal order was not received by him.
- Plaintiff contends prison mail disruption violated his Fifth Amendment due process, allegedly affecting filings.
- Court addresses multiple potential bases for relief (Rule 59(e), Rule 60(b)(1)-(4), and non-codified writs/foreign law) and denies the motion as untimely or inapplicable, while suggesting an independent equitable relief action could be pursued under Rule 60(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under Rule 59(e)? | Trupei argues timely opposition was prevented by mail issues. | Defendants contend Rule 59(e) deadline of 28 days applies and is not expandable. | Rule 59(e) deadline not met; untimely. |
| Applicability/timeliness of Rule 60(b)(1)-(2)? | Newly discovered evidence and lost mail justify relief. | One-year limit applies and has expired; not timely. | Untimely under Rule 60(b)(1)-(2). |
| Rule 60(b)(4) voidness due to due process? | Dismissal order void for Fifth Amendment due process violations. | Plaintiff alleges mail interference but does not show due process violation in the order. | No voidness established; Rule 60(b)(4) denied. |
| Consideration of non-statutory writs or foreign law? | Invocation of coram nobis or British North-American Act should be considered. | Such writs are abolished or irrelevant; no basis to relief. | Writs/foreign laws not a basis for relief; declined. |
| Alternative path for relief? | Relief could be sought in an independent equitable action. | Not addressed in the current motion. | Court notes Rule 60(d)(1) possible independent equitable action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Derrington-Bey v. D.C. Dep’t of Corrections, 39 F.3d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (no elasticity in Rule 60(b)’s one-year period)
- Prizevoits v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 76 F.3d 132 (7th Cir. 1996) (excusable neglect includes lost mail and similar delays)
- Carr v. District of Columbia, 543 F.2d 917 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (Rule 60(b) one-year deadline is not extendable)
- In re Center Wholesale, Inc., 759 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir. 1985) (a judgment may be void for due process violations under Rule 60(b)(4))