Vann v. Wolfe-Friedman

Background

Kouriockein Vann, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Department of Corrections and Community Supervision medical staff. He alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and retaliated against him for complaining about inadequate medical care.

On January 6, 2025, the court dismissed Vann’s first amended complaint in its entirety, dismissing his First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, fraud, failure-to-intervene, and conspiracy claims without prejudice. The court allowed him to file a second amended complaint. After Vann requested more time because of a facility strike, restricted law-library access, and difficulty obtaining appointed counsel, the court extended the deadline to June 2, 2025 and warned that failure to file would result in dismissal with prejudice of the claims previously dismissed without prejudice.

Vann did not file a second amended complaint or request another extension before the deadline. On July 2, 2025, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and entered a judgment dismissing the action with prejudice. Vann then filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) seeking reconsideration of that dismissal on August 2, 2025.

Reasons for Denial

The court held that the motion was untimely. Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, Vann had fourteen days from the July 2 order and judgment—until July 16, 2025—to file a reconsideration motion. Because he filed on August 2, the court found the motion time-barred.

The court also held that, even if the motion had been timely, Vann had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The court noted that Vann had received a total extension of 113 days but did not file the required pleading or seek more time before the deadline.

Regarding law-library access, the court relied on Department of Corrections and Community Supervision records showing that Vann attended the law library on February 19, 2025 and that other incarcerated people used the library during the period Vann claimed it was inaccessible. The court also noted that Vann had mailed two letters requesting extensions, which it viewed as evidence that he could communicate with the court.

The court rejected Vann’s argument that his inability to reach a legal-assistance agency and his hearing impairment justified reconsideration. It stated that the July dismissal was based on failure to prosecute and failure to follow court deadlines, not disability discrimination, and that Vann’s hearing impairment did not excuse noncompliance. The court further stated that civil litigants do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel and that Vann’s letters and filings showed he could proceed without counsel.

Finally, the court considered Vann’s assertion that he received the May 13 extension order late because of mail delays. Even accepting that assertion, the court found that Vann still had several days to request another extension and did not do so until after the defendants moved to dismiss. The court concluded that this did not constitute excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances.

Disposition

The court denied Vann’s motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 49 and mail the order to Vann. The order’s initial ruling says the motion is “DENIED with prejudice,” but the conclusion says only that the motion is “DENIED.”