Thompson v. Booth

Background

Kevin Thompson’s case originally named nine individual defendants; Troy Booth was the only remaining defendant addressed in this opinion. Booth was served with the complaint and initially participated through counsel for the New York State Attorney General. The court later ordered Booth to appear for a deposition, but he did not appear. The Attorney General’s office withdrew as his counsel, and Booth did not obtain substitute counsel or formally appear on his own behalf.

After Booth failed to participate in later proceedings, the court imposed sanctions and struck his answer. The court then entered a default judgment on liability. Booth did not attend the damages hearing, and the court ordered judgment against him for $50,000. After the judgment was entered, Booth moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) to vacate it. That rule permits relief from a judgment for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Booth also referred to Rule 55(c), but the court explained that a final default judgment is properly challenged under Rule 60(b).

Arguments and analysis

Booth argued that he had changed residences and therefore did not receive court notices before October 2021. He also argued that he had a complete and meritorious defense based on administrative exhaustion, which had resulted in summary judgment for former co-defendants. Thompson argued that Booth had received notice of the case and had multiple opportunities to participate, including after October 2021 and before the damages hearing.

The court applied three factors: whether Booth’s default was willful, whether he had a potentially meritorious defense, and whether reopening the judgment would prejudice Thompson. The court found that Booth’s default was willful because he continued not to participate after receiving notice of the proceedings, including notice at his current address. The court also relied on Booth’s earlier failure to attend the deposition, communicate with the court, respond to motions, and attend a court conference. The court stated that bad faith was not required to find willfulness and noted that it had previously found bad-faith conduct when striking Booth’s answer.

The court found that Booth’s proposed exhaustion defense did not warrant relief. It explained that exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proved, and Booth’s answer had been stricken. Reinstating the answer would therefore require undoing the sanctions order, which the court viewed as a significant obstacle. The court further stated that lack of prejudice alone would not justify vacating the judgment and found that Thompson would suffer significant prejudice because he had litigated for six years and would potentially have to retry the case without his former pro bono counsel.

Ruling

The court denied Booth’s motion to vacate the default judgment because he did not make the highly convincing showing of exceptional circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(1). The court also denied Thompson’s and Booth’s motions for extensions of time to file notices of appeal as unnecessary. Judge Philip M. Halpern stated that the opinion and order disposed of the last remaining motion for purposes of calculating the time to appeal. The court also directed the Clerk to mail copies of the order to Thompson and Booth.