Aikens v. Ingram
80 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 13, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14298, 652 F.3d 496 (2011)
Rule of Law:
A party seeking relief from a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) must demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances," and this rule is not a substitute for a timely appeal or other available litigation alternatives, even if the underlying judgment was erroneous.
Facts:
- Frederick Aikens was promoted to colonel in the North Carolina Army National Guard, and Lieutenant Colonel Peter von Jess was selected to replace him as executive officer of the 139th Rear Operations Center.
- Aikens received complaints about von Jess from subordinate field officers, leading Aikens to discipline von Jess in July 2002 and December 2002 officer evaluation reports.
- Adjutant General William Ingram, who had selected von Jess, invalidated Colonel Aikens’ evaluation of von Jess, which provoked Aikens to file a complaint for undue command influence with the Department of the Army Inspector General, which was substantiated.
- In April 2003, while Aikens was deployed in Kuwait, two of his subordinate officers, allegedly under General Ingram's instructions, illegally monitored and intercepted his personal e-mails from a computer system they had set up for him.
- These intercepted e-mails contained personal correspondence, including negative statements about General Ingram and others.
- General Ingram ordered two separate investigations of Aikens in December 2003 and February 2004, both of which were later determined to be unsubstantiated.
- Aikens was notified by the Inspector General of yet another investigation for a “hostile command climate and inappropriate relations with women,” with charges partially substantiated by use of the intercepted e-mails.
- As a result of the third investigation, Colonel Aikens resigned from the North Carolina National Guard in June 2005, which he asserts amounted to constructive discharge from the United States Army.
Procedural Posture:
- Colonel Aikens commenced an action against General Ingram and Lieutenant Colonel von Jess in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging Fourth Amendment violations and violations of Army Regulation 380-19.
- General Ingram and Lieutenant Colonel von Jess filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing Aikens failed to exhaust intra-service military remedies.
- The district court granted the motion without prejudice, directing Aikens to exhaust his administrative remedies with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), entering judgment on September 14, 2007.
- Aikens pursued administrative remedies with the ABCMR.
- The ABCMR denied Aikens relief, stating his application and sought remedy were "not within the purview" of the board, returning it without prejudice and without action.
- On March 31, 2008, Aikens filed a motion for relief from the September 14, 2007 judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).
- The district court denied Aikens’ Rule 60(b)(6) motion on November 5, 2008, finding he failed to show "extraordinary circumstances".
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Colonel Aikens' motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), despite his claim that the court's erroneous exhaustion requirement led to a potential statute of limitations bar on his federal claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Niemeyer, Circuit Judge
No, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Colonel Aikens' Rule 60(b)(6) motion, as he failed to demonstrate the "extraordinary circumstances" required for relief. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is a catchall provision applicable only in "extraordinary circumstances" when relief is not covered by other enumerated reasons, and it is not intended as a substitute for a timely appeal. The court emphasized the importance of preserving the finality of judgments, noting that granting broad application to Rule 60(b)(6) would undermine other rules establishing time limits for appeals and post-judgment motions. Aikens had several procedural mechanisms available to him that he chose not to utilize: he could have appealed the district court's original dismissal, requested a stay of the original action pending administrative exhaustion, or filed a new action after exhausting administrative remedies. The court concluded that Aikens' predicament, including any potential statute of limitations issue, was a result of his own strategic litigation choices and management of the action, rather than extraordinary circumstances. The court also rejected Aikens' alternative argument that his Rule 60(b)(6) motion should have been treated as a new complaint, distinguishing his situation from pro se inmate cases that receive liberal construction.
Concurring - Diaz, Circuit Judge
Yes, the majority is correct that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Judge Diaz emphasized that the abuse-of-discretion standard requires judicial restraint and does not permit an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the district court merely because it "would have come to a different result in the first instance." While the district court could have granted Aikens' motion, its failure to do so was not "beyond the pale" as to constitute an abuse of discretion. The concurrence distinguished the cases relied upon by the dissent, noting that Compton involved an unappealable default judgment and White involved a prompt Rule 60(b)(6) motion filed within the appeal window after a judgment entered without notice. Aikens' Rule 60(b)(6) motion was filed over six months after the initial judgment. The concurrence also rejected the idea that Supreme Court precedent compelled the district court to sua sponte order a stay, and noted that the "equities" of the case were not one-sided in Aikens' favor, referencing his investigation for "hostile command climate" and "inappropriate relations with women" which were substantiated by the Inspector General.
Dissenting - King, Circuit Judge
Yes, the district court abused its discretion by denying Colonel Aikens' Rule 60(b)(6) motion because the entire predicament stemmed from the district court's "demonstrably wrong" initial dismissal and its failure to properly manage the case. The dissent argued that the district court erroneously dismissed Aikens' case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, when the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) ultimately confirmed it had no jurisdiction over his claim, rendering exhaustion futile. Furthermore, the district court should have sua sponte entered a stay of the proceedings rather than dismissing the case, especially given the potential for statute of limitations issues, consistent with Supreme Court precedent like General American Tank Car Corp. The district court also explicitly assured Aikens he could "return to federal court" if the ABCMR lacked jurisdiction, which he reasonably interpreted as an invitation for Rule 60(b) relief. The court's error, which caused Aikens' potential limitations problem, constitutes "extraordinary circumstances" warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The dissent cited White v. Investors Mgmt. Corp. and Compton v. Alton Steamship Co. as precedents where judicial error warranted Rule 60(b) relief, and argued that penalizing Aikens for his lawyer's reasonable, good-faith choices (especially after receiving the court's assurance) was unjust and contravened the spirit of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to secure a "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination."
Dissenting - Davis, Circuit Judge
Yes, the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b)(6) motion. Judge Davis fully joined Judge King's dissent, adding that the majority opinion offers little useful guidance to district courts beyond a fact-specific ruling. He argued that the majority's "strict interpretation" of Rule 60(b)(6) overlooks the importance of appellate courts scrutinizing case-dispositive decisions, particularly when they involve underlying errors. Citing Judge Friendly, Judge Davis emphasized that the abuse-of-discretion standard should not be an "immutable mandate" that ties appellate hands, especially when substantial justice is denied. He highlighted that fairness may demand a more expansive reading of Rule 60(b) in certain contexts, particularly for "door-slamming" orders like dismissals. The district court's dual errors—the erroneous exhaustion requirement and the subsequent refusal to correct that error via Rule 60(b)(6)—constituted a failure to "call the game by the right rules" and thus an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high bar for obtaining relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), particularly when a party has foregone other procedural avenues. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to the finality of judgments and the importance of timely appeals, even against seemingly erroneous rulings. Future litigants must be acutely aware of available appeals and stays, as courts will be reluctant to grant Rule 60(b)(6) relief if a party's "tactical decisions" led to their predicament. The dissent, however, highlights a tension between strict adherence to procedural rules and the equitable goal of correcting judicial error to ensure claims are heard on their merits, especially when a court's initial error contributes to a later procedural bind.
