McGhee v. Broomfield

Background

Tijue Adolphus McGhee filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against San Quentin State Prison officers R. Jaime-Daumy and Wren. He alleged that Jaime-Daumy read legal mail addressed to his appellate counsel and that Wren allowed it. On September 28, 2020, the court found that the allegations stated legally cognizable claims under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

On March 22, 2021, the court dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and entered judgment for the defendants. The dismissal was stated to be without prejudice to reopening if McGhee could show good cause for his failure to prosecute. The court had ordered McGhee to provide an updated address and respond to the court, but he did not do so. After McGhee later sought judgment in his favor, the court explained that judgment had already been entered and that any request to reopen had to address his failure to prosecute from August 11, 2020, through September 6, 2022.

Request to Reopen

McGhee filed a pleading titled “Reply to the Court for Reopening of Dismissed Action without Prejudice Good Cause to be Determined by Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr.” The court construed it as a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to set aside the judgment and reopen the action.

McGhee attributed his failure to prosecute to deliberate, intermittent drug use; becoming unhoused; moving through temporary housing and correctional facilities; health problems; the loss, confiscation, or unavailability of his legal documents; and petty theft to obtain money.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 60(b)(6) permits a court to provide relief from a judgment in extraordinary circumstances to prevent a serious injustice. The moving party must show both injury and circumstances beyond the party’s control that prevented proper litigation. The court considered factors including extraordinary circumstances, diligence, the interest in finality, the delay between the judgment and the request, and the connection between the claimed circumstances and the judgment.

The court concluded that McGhee had not shown the required extraordinary circumstances or serious injustice. It found that the first two factors—extraordinary circumstances and diligence—weighed against him because his failure to prosecute resulted from deliberate decisions to use drugs and engage in conduct that led to incarceration. The court also found that the interest in finality and the nearly two-year delay weighed against reopening the case. The connection factor was neutral: the circumstances McGhee identified were the reasons he sought reopening, but the court found that they resulted from his voluntary choices and therefore did not support reopening.

Disposition

The court denied McGhee’s request to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) and reopen the case. The case remains closed. The court did not decide the merits of McGhee’s proposed challenge to his 1993 state-court conviction. It stated that such a challenge should be brought in a separate petition and directed the Clerk to send McGhee two petition forms.