Lee v. Village of River Forest, s. 90-1456

• Decision Date: 12 July 1991
• Docket Number: 90-1757 and 90-1765,Nos. 90-1456,s. 90-1456
• Citation: 936 F.2d 976
• Parties: Robert E. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF RIVER FOREST, a municipal corporation, Nicholas Coscino, J. Barstatis, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 976

936 F.2d 976

20 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1069

Robert E. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF RIVER FOREST, a municipal corporation, Nicholas Coscino, J. Barstatis, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 90-1456, 90-1757 and 90-1765.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Argued Jan. 17, 1991.

Decided July 12, 1991.

Walter M. Ketchum, Arthur E. Engelland, Karen Ann Rowan, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.

Peter M. Rosenthal, David Lincoln Ader, Ancel, Glink, Diamond & Cope, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees.

Before CUMMINGS, WOOD, Jr., and COFFEY, Circuit Judges.

HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Circuit Judge.

Robert E. Lee sued the Village of River Forest and fifteen present and former police officers of the Village of River Forest. Lee alleged that his December 1983 arrest, indictment and incarceration, which stemmed from charges that he murdered his wife, violated his fourth and fourteenth amendment constitutional rights. He sought redress pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. We are now presented with the consolidated appeal of two cases brought by Lee against defendants.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On December 20, 1983, Lee discovered that his wife had passed away during the night. Police of the Village of River Forest and paramedics arrived and found the deceased to be a gaunt woman with several fractures in the process of healing as well as a fresh head injury. Lee's son told police that the head injury resulted from a fall--a bed frame caused the laceration. The physician of Lee's wife was at the scene and explained that Lee's wife had suffered from Alzheimer's disease. Fearing that Lee had abused his wife, the police arrested him for murder.

Initially, Lee was detained for thirty-six hours without hearing or bond. A grand jury indicted Lee for murder on December 23, 1983. Unable to post bond, Lee spent twenty-five additional days in jail. On January 17, 1984, the Cook County medical examiner's report revealed that Lee's wife had suffered from Alzheimer's disease (as her physician had reported) and that she died of natural causes. Soon after the issuance of the report, the charges against Lee were dismissed and the case formally withdrawn by the prosecutor.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Lee filed the first case against the defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on December 19, 1985. A section 1983 action, Lee alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights through their actions regarding the death of his wife. On March 19, 1987, Lee filed an amended complaint in which he again asserted a claim against defendants, pursuant to section 1983, for their violation of his constitutional rights--his fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable arrest and his fourteenth amendment right to due process of law.

Defendants filed on March 26, 1987, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion to dismiss on June 22, 1987. Lee did not file a motion to reconsider or vacate the judgment, nor did he appeal; instead, on July 6, 1987, he made a motion to file a second amended complaint. The court took the matter under advisement. On August 6, 1987, before the court made any decision on the July motion, Lee filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The court granted the voluntary dismissal on September 14, 1987, and denied the motion to file a second amended complaint, finding it moot.

In the district court's June 22, 1987 memorandum opinion and order entered with the judgment in favor of defendants, the court stated, "If Lee thinks Illinois law provides him with a remedy--which we do not decide--he should be in Illinois court." Lee took that advice and on May 17, 1988, he filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Lee sought damages from defendants for libel and slander, malicious prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment--all state law violations. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 1, 1988, to which Lee responded with a first amended complaint on August 29, 1988. Defendants filed another motion to dismiss on October 31, 1988. On June 9, 1989, the court granted the motion to dismiss on the false arrest claim, and the other three counts were stricken. The court gave Lee time to file an amended complaint. Lee filed his second amended complaint October 4, 1989, but asserted only federal claims pursuant to section 1983. Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 13, 1989. Shortly thereafter, November 7, 1989, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Lee did not respond to the motion to dismiss, but filed a motion to clarify on November 30, 1989.

The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss on January 18, 1990, finding the suit to be barred by both res judicata and the statute of limitations. Lee filed a motion to reconsider and vacate the judgment, and for leave to file an amended complaint. The court denied the motion.

After the denial of the motion to reconsider, Lee turned his attention again to the district court's dismissal of the initial case on June 22, 1987. Lee sought relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The district court denied the motion for relief from judgment on March 5, 1990.

Lee now claims that the district court erred when it denied the motion for relief under Rule 60(b), because exceptional circumstances exist to justify relief. Lee also claims that the district court erred in dismissing the second action brought before the district court on the grounds of res judicata and the statute of limitations. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decisions of the district court.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Rule 60(b)(6)

Lee argues that this case presents extraordinary circumstances that justify relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). ¹ He urges this court to vacate the district court's opinions of June 22, 1987, and September 4, 1987, and grant him leave to file an amended complaint. Lee contends that he will suffer extreme hardship unless relief is granted, because the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal by the district court prevents Lee from having any court consider his state law claims, thus denying Lee the opportunity to have his day in court.

This court's review of a district court's denial of a motion for relief from judgment is limited. Del Carmen v. Emerson Electric Co., 908 F.2d 158, 161 (7th Cir.1990). This court will grant a Rule 60(b) motion "only upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances that create a substantial danger that the underlying judgment was unjust." Margoles v. Johns, 798 F.2d 1069, 1073 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 905, 107 S.Ct. 2482, 96 L.Ed.2d 374 reh'g denied, 483 U.S. 1056, 108 S.Ct. 31, 97 L.Ed.2d 820 (1987). See Del Carmen, 908 F.2d at 161; McKnight v. United States Steel Corp., 726 F.2d 333, 335 (7th Cir.1984). Supporting this limited review is " 'a strong policy favoring the finality of judgments.' " 3 Penny Theater Corp. v. Plitt Theatres, Inc., 812 F.2d 337, 340 (7th Cir.1987) (quoting Margoles, 798 F.2d at 1072).

A trial judge has broad discretion to grant Rule 60(b) relief from judgment, and we will not reverse that decision unless the district court abused its discretion. Del Carmen, 908 F.2d at 161. An abuse of discretion on a Rule 60(b) motion "is established only when no reasonable person could agree with the district court; there is no abuse of discretion if a reasonable person could disagree as to the propriety of the court's action." McKnight, 726 F.2d at 335.

It is important to note that in reviewing the district court's Rule 60(b) determination, this court " 'can only consider whether the denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion; we cannot reach the merits of the underlying judgment.' " Kagan v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 795 F.2d 601, 607 (7th Cir.1986) (quoting Marane, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 755 F.2d 106, 112 (7th Cir.1985)). This limitation generates a much narrower review " 'than would [be] our review on direct appeal of the underlying order from which relief was sought by the Rule 60(b) motion.' " Id. (quoting Pryor v. United States Postal Service, 769 F.2d 281, 286 (5th Cir.1985)).

Lee argues that this court should reverse the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion because the June 1987 dismissal should be considered a Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal for want of jurisdiction, not a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. A dismissal for want of jurisdiction would be a dismissal without prejudice, and according to Lee, would not unfairly deny him his day in court as did the 12(b)(6) judgment. After reviewing the pleadings filed by the parties regarding defendants' motion to dismiss, and the court's memorandum and order dismissing the case, we are convinced that the dismissal was pursuant to 12(b)(6) and operates as a dismissal on the merits.

Another argument asserted by Lee is that he has been unfairly deprived of his right to pursue state law claims against defendants; but Lee neglects to mention several important factors regarding his pursuit of a state law action. Lee did in fact file two complaints in state court in which he asserted four state law claims and no federal claims. The Circuit Court of Cook County dismissed one of the four counts in the first amended complaint, and the other three were stricken. The second amended complaint filed by Lee alleged only federal claims pursuant to section 1983. That case was properly removed to the district court, and the dismissal by the district court of that case is also being appealed by Lee.

Lee already had an opportunity to pursue his claims in state court, but maintains that he is being denied his day in court. Lee's first case in the district court presented no state law claims against defendants, but only federal claims pursuant to section 1983; therefore, the...