Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Trellis Kyle Day sued Amazon.com Services, L.L.C., alleging that Amazon discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability and approve a leave of absence. After allowing the pro se plaintiff to amend, the district court dismissed with prejudice his claims under the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Day did not appeal that judgment.
Nearly one year later, Day sought relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (2), (3), and (6). The district court denied the motion, and Day timely appealed that denial. His appellate brief principally challenged the merits and procedure of the original Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, while also asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying Rule 60(b) relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the underlying dismissal. Day did not appeal the dismissal within the 30-day deadline, and his Rule 60(b) motion, filed nearly a year later, did not extend that deadline. A timely appeal from the denial of Rule 60(b) relief did not bring the underlying judgment before the appellate court.
The court had jurisdiction to review the denial of Rule 60(b) relief but held that Day abandoned that challenge through inadequate briefing. His conclusory assertions did not identify an applicable Rule 60(b) ground, apply its requirements to his case, or cite supporting authority. Referring the court to his district-court motion did not substitute for developing an appellate argument. The Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed the denial of Rule 60(b) relief.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion does not place the underlying judgment before the appellate court.
- A Rule 60(b) motion filed more than 28 days after judgment does not extend the deadline to appeal that judgment.
- Even pro se appellants abandon issues when they offer only conclusory assertions and fail to develop arguments with supporting authority and record citations.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Rule 60(b) cannot serve as a substitute for a timely appeal. Litigants seeking review of an underlying judgment must preserve appellate jurisdiction by filing their notice of appeal within the applicable deadline.
It also reinforces that the Fifth Circuit’s liberal construction of pro se briefs does not eliminate Rule 28’s briefing requirements. An appellant must explain why the challenged ruling was erroneous under the governing legal standard rather than merely refer to arguments made below.