Keith v. Mullins, 97-3150WA

Citation162 F.3d 539
Decision Date22 December 1998
Docket NumberNo. 97-3150WA,97-3150WA
Parties8 A.D. Cases 1570, 14 NDLR P 62 Stephen KEITH, As Parent and Next Friend of Ezekiel Keith, a Minor; Susan Keith, As Parent and Next Friend of Ezekiel Keith, a Minor, Appellants, Ezekiel Keith, a Minor, Plaintiff, v. Joe MULLINS, As County Judge of Columbia County, Arkansas; Kelly J. Blair, As Justice of the Peace of the Columbia County Quorum Court; Richard P. Clark, As Justice of the Peace of the Columbia County Quorum Court; Marshall Ray Mooney, As Justice of the Peace of the Columbia County Quorum Court; Howard A. Gordon, As Justice of the Peace of the Columbia County Quorum Court; Bruce Maloch, As Justice of the Peace of the Columbia County Quorum Court; Jimmy Furr, As Justice of the Peace of the Columbia County Quorum Court; Cal D. Shepherd, As Justice of the Peace of the Columbia County Quorum Court; David Fielding, As Justice of the Peace of the Columbia County Quorum Court; Allen R. Pinney, As Justice of the Peace of the Columbia County Quorum Court; Ken Sibley, As Justice of the Peace of the Columbia County Quorum Court; Homer F. Greer, As Justice of the Peace of the Columbia County Quorum Court, Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

Steven R. Davis, John T. Haskins, Little Rock, AR, argued (Steven R. Davis, on the brief), for Appellant.

Robert A. Russell, Little Rock, AR, argued, for Appellee.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Stephen and Susan Keith appeal the District Court's order granting defendants' motion to amend a mandatory injunction entered by the Court. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

The Keiths' son, Ezekiel, uses a wheelchair. In their January 1996 lawsuit, the Keiths contended that Columbia County, Arkansas, failed to make the entrance to the County Courthouse in Magnolia accessible to disabled individuals, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1983, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-796i.

In March 1997, the District Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, and entered a mandatory injunction ordering the County to construct a ramp at the courthouse to make it wheelchair-accessible. The Court retained jurisdiction and directed the County to file a status report on its progress in achieving compliance with the ADA. In June 1997, the County filed a motion to amend the mandatory injunction. The Keiths opposed the motion and requested a hearing. In September 1997, without holding a hearing, the Court modified the mandatory injunction to give the County a choice between installing a wheelchair lift and constructing a ramp. The Keiths appeal, arguing that the March 1997 final judgment is the law of the case, because the County neither appealed it nor moved to modify it within ten days under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and that no showing was made sufficient to justify modifying the injunction.

We construe the County's motion to amend as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), which provides: "upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party ... from a final judgment ... [if] the judgment has been satisfied ... or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application." The District Court retains authority under Rule 60(b)(5) to modify an injunction when changed circumstances have caused it to be unjust. See Association for Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Sinner, 942 F.2d 1235, 1239 (8th Cir.1991); cf. Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) (party seeking modification of consent decree in institutional-reform setting bears burden of establishing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. National Park, 04-1465.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 29 June 2005
    ...... 60(b)(5) to modify an injunction when changed circumstances have caused it to be unjust." Keith v. Mullins, 162 F.3d 539, 540-41 (8th Cir.1998). "`Relief under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary ......
  • White v. National Football League, 08-2001.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 10 November 2009
    ...... Keith v. Mullins, 162 F.3d 539, 541 (8th Cir.1998). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) provides ......
  • U.S. v. Northshore Min. Co., 08-1423.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 17 August 2009
    ......  We review the district court's modification of an injunction for abuse of discretion, see Keith v. Mullins, 162 F.3d 539, 540-41 (8th Cir.1998), recognizing that "a federal court of equity has ......
  • Icee Distributors, Inc. v. J&J Snack Foods Corp., 04-30060.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 11 April 2006
    ....... . ."); Keith v. Mullins, 162 F.3d 539, 541 (8th Cir.1998) (holding that a district court abuses its discretion ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT