Jackson v. Stanford

Background

Nahshon Jackson brought this civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights. His claims concerned the free exercise of religion, due process, and the right to petition the government.

In September 2019, the court dismissed Jackson’s complaint for failure to state a claim, but allowed him 30 days to file an amended complaint as to three claims. Jackson did not file an amended complaint. He later sought reconsideration, including on the ground that an attorney’s alleged misrepresentation made the earlier decision void. The court denied that request.

Jackson later moved to amend his complaint. A magistrate judge recommended denying the defendants’ motion and closing the case. The district court overruled Jackson’s objections, adopted that recommendation, entered judgment, and closed the case on August 20, 2021. Jackson appealed and then filed the motion addressed in this order. The appeal was stayed while the court considered the motion.

Motion for Relief from Judgment

Jackson moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) and Rule 60(b)(4). Rule 60(b)(3) permits relief from a judgment because of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. The moving party must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the conduct prevented a full and fair presentation of the case. Rule 60(b)(4) permits relief when a judgment is void, such as when the court lacked authority over the subject matter or the parties, or acted inconsistently with due process.

Jackson argued that former Assistant Attorney General Bradley G. Wilson improperly accepted service on behalf of the defendants. Jackson contended that he was instead entitled to have the U.S. Marshals serve each defendant and that the alleged service problem deprived the court of authority over the defendants.

Ruling

The court denied the motion. It stated that Jackson relied on arguments previously raised and rejected and provided no new reason to revisit the earlier conclusion that he had not shown clear and convincing evidence of misconduct. The court also repeated its prior conclusion that, even if service was improper, defendants Tina M. Stanford, McCoy, and Mallozzi had appeared and filed a responsive pleading. Because defective service can be waived, the court concluded that the alleged service defect did not deprive it of authority to hear the case.

The court further stated that it had considered Jackson’s remaining arguments and found them without merit. Judge Alison J. Nathan therefore denied the motion to be relieved from the judgment. The court also found that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Jackson permission to proceed without paying appeal fees.