Fleming v. United States Department of Justice

Background

Plaintiff Rhonda Fleming, a federal inmate currently housed at Federal Medical Center (FMC) Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas, originally filed this lawsuit in December 2018 against numerous Bureau of Prisons (BOP) employees, alleging she experienced or witnessed sexual abuse at several federal correctional institutions.

In March 2020, the court dismissed most defendants and ultimately dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute after finding Fleming ineligible for in forma pauperis (IFP) status — a legal status that allows a litigant to proceed without prepaying court fees. Fleming was found ineligible because she had accumulated three or more prior civil lawsuits dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, triggering the "three-strikes" bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court found she did not qualify for the exception to that bar, which applies when a prisoner faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. Because she also had not paid the civil filing fee, the case was dismissed without prejudice.

Fleming moved to reopen the case twice before this third motion. Her first motion (June 2020) cited the death of George Floyd and comparisons to her own treatment; it was denied. Her second motion (September 2023) cited a class action alleging systemic sexual abuse at FCI-Dublin and alleged retaliatory threats by a correctional officer; it too was denied because she had not demonstrated the § 1915(g) imminent-danger exception applied and had not paid the filing fee.

The Third Motion to Reopen

Fleming's third motion, filed more than five years after the original dismissal, enclosed checks to cover the civil filing fee. She argued that an ongoing investigation of the sexual abuse she suffered remained active, and that BOP investigators had questioned her as recently as May 2025.

Legal Standard

The court analyzed the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows relief from a final judgment in specified circumstances: (1) mistake or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) a void judgment; (5) a judgment that has been satisfied or reversed; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Because Fleming's motion did not fit categories (1) through (5), the court considered only the catchall provision, Rule 60(b)(6), which requires "exceptional circumstances" and is described as an "extraordinary remedy."

Under Rule 60(c), all Rule 60(b) motions must be made within a "reasonable time." While categories (1)–(3) carry a one-year outer limit, category (6) has no fixed deadline but still requires timeliness.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

Judge Nelson denied the motion on two independent grounds.

Untimeliness

The motion was filed more than five years after the initial dismissal and more than two years after the court denied the Second Motion to Reopen. Although the court acknowledged that Fleming may have needed time to accumulate funds for the filing fee, it found the delay unreasonably long. The court also noted that some of the events described in the complaint occurred approximately ten years ago, and that allowing the case to proceed at this late stage would prejudice the defendants.

Futility

Reopening the case would be futile because the statute of limitations applicable to Fleming's claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2401, had already expired. The FTCA is the statute that allows individuals to sue the federal government for certain tortious acts of its employees. Because the limitations period had run, the court found that reopening the case would only result in its immediate dismissal. The court also noted that Rule 60(b)(6) cannot be used as a vehicle to circumvent an expired statute of limitations. Additionally, the court observed that if it allowed reopening and then dismissed the case, Fleming would lose her filing fee — a practical concern the court chose to avoid by returning her checks without depositing them.

Judge Nelson denied the Third Motion to Reopen [Doc. No. 82] and directed the Clerk of Court to return Fleming's submitted checks.