McCullom v. Unknown

Background

Kevin McCullom, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Alameda Sheriff’s Department and others. On January 27, 2020, the court dismissed his complaint with leave to amend, meaning he was allowed to file a corrected complaint addressing identified deficiencies. The court gave him 28 days to amend and warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal without prejudice and without further notice.

McCullom did not file an amended complaint by the deadline. On March 5, 2020, the court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to file the amended complaint, and judgment was entered that day.

Post-Judgment Filing

After more than a year, McCullom filed a paper titled “Refiling Case No. 19-cv-6003 BLF.” He also sought review by a three-judge district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b)(3) and requested a temporary or permanent restraining order against the defendants. He cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Court’s Ruling

The court denied the post-judgment motion for relief. It explained that the three-judge-court statute applies when required by an act of Congress or when an action challenges the constitutionality of congressional-district or statewide-legislative apportionment. The court held that the statute did not apply to McCullom’s § 1983 action. It also explained that Rule 7(b) concerns motions and other papers filed in district court and does not provide a basis for the requested post-judgment relief. Section 1332 concerns original jurisdiction and does not authorize injunctive relief.

The court separately denied the request for a temporary or permanent restraining order. A temporary restraining order is emergency relief governed by a standard similar to that for a preliminary injunction. The applicant must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favors relief, and that relief serves the public interest. Because McCullom had not filed a viable complaint and the action had been dismissed for failing to amend, the court found that he had shown none of these factors.

The court stated that McCullom could seek reconsideration and reopening of the judgment by filing a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Because more than one year had passed since judgment, the court said that only the grounds listed in Rule 60(b)(4), (5), and (6) could be asserted at that time. It directed him to file any such motion within 28 days and to explain why the delay of approximately one year and four months should be considered reasonable under Rule 60(c). The order terminated Docket No. 13.