Wimberly v. James

Background

Jason Wimberly filed the action without a lawyer. On May 21, 2024, the court dismissed his amended complaint because the Anti-Injunction Act barred the action, the Eleventh Amendment barred claims against the defendants in the circumstances presented, and the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The Clerk entered judgment on May 24, 2024. Wimberly then filed submissions challenging the dismissal and later filed a notice of appeal.

The court treated those submissions as requests under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, Local Civil Rule 6.3 to reconsider the decision, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to obtain relief from the judgment.

Jurisdiction and Rule 59(e)

Although Wimberly had filed a notice of appeal, the court concluded that it could consider the requests because they were filed within the time allowed for motions under Rules 59 and 60. The court explained that a timely motion delays the effectiveness of the notice of appeal until the district court rules on the motion.

For a Rule 59(e) motion, Wimberly had to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court considered his arguments about the Anti-Injunction Act, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and his constitutional claims under Section 1983. It stated that, even if the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply and the defendants did not have Eleventh Amendment immunity, Wimberly still had not alleged facts supporting a viable constitutional claim under Section 1983. The court therefore denied the Rule 59(e) motion.

Local Rule 6.3

The court stated that the standards under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Rule 59(e) are the same. It denied Wimberly’s Local Rule 6.3 motion for the same reasons it denied the Rule 59(e) motion.

Rule 60(b)

Rule 60(b) allows relief from a judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason that justifies relief. The court concluded that Wimberly had not shown that any of the first five grounds applied. It therefore denied relief under those provisions.

The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which applies only for reasons different from those listed in the first five provisions and requires a reasonable filing time and extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Wimberly had not shown extraordinary circumstances.

Disposition

The court denied Wimberly’s motion for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk to terminate all motions in the action and to accept no further documents except those directed to the Court of Appeals. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.