Stephenson v. Cox, Civil Action No. 00-1921 (RMU) (D. D.C. 8/7/2003)

• Decision Date: 07 August 2003
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 00-1921 (RMU).,Document No. 36.
• Parties: THOMAS STEPHENSON, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER JOHN COX and OFFICER WILLIAM MOSSBURG, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Page 1

THOMAS STEPHENSON, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER JOHN COX and OFFICER WILLIAM MOSSBURG, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 00-1921 (RMU).

Document No. 36.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

August 7, 2003.

David Ebenezer George, Brookeville, MD, Counsel for Plaintiff.

Brian J. Sonfield, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, D.C., Counsel for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

RICARDO M. URBINA, District Judge.

DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Thomas Stephenson filed a complaint against United States Park Police Officers John Cox and William Mossburg (collectively "the defendants") for damages caused by their allegedly unlawful arrest and detention of him. Although the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 4, 2001, the plaintiff, represented by counsel, failed to respond to that motion until May 15, 2002. On September 23, 2002, the court granted as conceded the defendant's motion because the plaintiff had failed to both timely respond to the motion and demonstrate excusable neglect in support of his request that the court consider his five-month-late response. This matter is now before the court on the plaintiff's October 10, 2002 motion for relief from the court's judgment.

Because the plaintiff filed his motion more than 10 days after the entry of the judgment at issue, the court treats the motion as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), rather than the less burdensome motion for relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) Computer Prof'ls for Soc. Responsibility v. U.S. Secret Serv., 72 F.3d 897, 903 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (stating that an untimely motion under Rule 59(e) may be considered as a motion under Rule 60(b)). Rule 60(b) gives a court discretion to relieve a party from an otherwise final judgment when that party demonstrates mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b); Lepkowski v. Dep't of Treasury, 804 F.2d 1310, 1311-12 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Muwekma Tribe v. Norton, 206 F. Supp.2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2002). For motions filed one year or more after the judgment, Rule 60(b) permits relief if the judgment is void or otherwise satisfied or for "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment" if the "party is faultless in the delay." Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993) (stressing that courts should apply the "any other reason" prong sparingly).

Interestingly, the plaintiff repeatedly blames his failure to timely and adequately respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss on the fact that the court waited nine months to rule on the defendant's motion to dismiss. Pl.'s Mot. ¶¶ 6, 7, 11, 13. The plaintiff bases his motion on the court's delay despite the fact that the plaintiff filed his opposition five months late and only after the court issued an order to show cause why the court should not treat the motion to dismiss as conceded. Id. The court's delay fails to justify relief from judgment,...