Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Eric Lamar Ellis, proceeding pro se, brought a civil rights action against Rubi Garza-Lopez and Brian Marshall Barrier. The district court granted summary judgment in defendants’ favor based on qualified immunity, which the Fifth Circuit affirmed in May 2023. Two years later, Ellis moved to vacate under Rule 60(b)(6), which was denied by both the district court and Fifth Circuit in December 2025. In February 2026, Ellis filed yet another motion, this time under Rule 60(b)(4), seeking to vacate the judgment as void. The district court denied this motion, finding it had federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that Ellis’s due process rights were not violated given the extensive procedural history.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Ellis’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion. Rule 60(b)(4) permits relief only when “the judgment is void,” which occurs in rare instances of jurisdictional error or violation of due process depriving a party of notice or opportunity to be heard. Ellis failed to establish that the judgment was void under this standard. First, Ellis did not allege the district court lacked federal jurisdiction. Second, Ellis made only conclusory allegations that he was deprived of due process by the grant of summary judgment without discovery, and he did not explain how he was actually deprived of notice or the opportunity to be heard. The court found Ellis’s appeal to be frivolous and merely regurgitated previously raised arguments about alleged errors at the summary judgment stage.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 60(b)(4) voidness relief is available only in rare instances involving jurisdictional error or violation of due process depriving notice or opportunity to be heard—not for alleged errors in summary judgment procedure.
- Pro se litigants must make factual and legal allegations supporting their claims; conclusory statements are insufficient to establish voidness.
- Litigants bringing repetitive, frivolous appeals risk monetary sanctions or restrictions on access to federal courts.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the Fifth Circuit’s firm stance against frivolous litigation and abuse of the judicial system by repeat filers. Ellis has now returned to federal court three times seeking relief from the same judgment, each time using different procedural mechanisms (qualified immunity appeal, Rule 60(b)(6), and Rule 60(b)(4)). The court explicitly warned that pro se litigants have “no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets,” and cautioned that future frivolous or repetitive appeals may result in sanctions or restrictions on court access.
The opinion reinforces that Rule 60(b)(4) is a narrow remedy requiring more than disagreement with a court’s judgment or dissatisfaction with discovery—it requires demonstration of actual jurisdictional defect or fundamental due process deprivation.