-
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D December 16, 2003 In the Charles R. Fulbruge III United States Court of Appeals Clerk for the Fifth Circuit _______________ No. 03-30653 Summary Calendar _______________ JANIE MCKENZIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS ANTHONY PRINCIPI, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana m 02-CV-1601 _________________________ Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff Janie McKenzie appeals the dis- missal of her claim after she failed timely to PER CURIAM:* respond to a dispositive motion by defendant. * * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has de- (...continued) termined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited cir- (continued...) cumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Finding no error, we affirm. of the VA, dismissing with prejudice on June 9. I. McKenzie sued on May 24, 2002, charging II. that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (“the McKenzie argues that the court abused its VA”) had unlawfully engaged in racial discrim- discretion in refusing to grant her motion for ination against her, in violation of title VII. relief, because counsel’s failure to reply timely During the pre-trial period, the court set June was “excusable neglect.” Appellate review of 9, 2003, as a cutoff date for pre-trial motions a denial of a rule 60(b) motion is narrower in to be heard. In scheduling pre-trial deadlines, scope than is review of the order of dismissal. the court was mindful that McKenzie’s counsel To merit reversal, a denial must be so unwar- had duties as a legislator during the spring and ranted as to constitute an abuse of discretion. summer. In its discretion, the court charitably New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Martech USA, adjusted the pre-trial schedule to reduce con- Inc.,
993 F.2d 1195, 1200 (5th Cir. 1993) (cit- flict with counsel’s other duties. ing Brown v. Petrolite Corp.,
965 F.2d 38(5th On May 12, the VA filed a motion to dis- Cir. 1992)); Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 miss or alternatively for summary judgment. F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. Unit A Jan. 1981) The motion package was duly delivered to McKenzie’s lawyer on May 13, informing him Any post-deadline extension to reply to a that the motion would be heard on May 28. dispositive motion must be “upon motion McKenzie failed to respond until May 22, too made” and is permissible only where the failure late to be heard under the applicable rules. 1 to meet deadline ‘was the result of “excusable The court granted the motion to dismiss as neglect.” Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 unopposed. U.S. 871, 896 (1990). In determining whether a late filing was excusable neglect, the court On June 5, 2003, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. should take into account the possible prejudice P. 60(b), McKenzie filed a “Motion for Relief to the later filer, the length of delay and the from Judgment or Order and Reinstatement of impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for Action” (“motion for relief”). As the basis for delay, including especially if it was within the the request for leniency, McKenzie’s attorney reasonable control of the movant, and whether pointed to his duties as a state representative, the movant acted in good faith. Pioneer Inv. where he was then serving in a regular session Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, convened on March 31 and set to extend
507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). through June 23. He argued that his work had kept him out of his office and had caused the Moreover, “the greater the negligence in- late response. The court refused to grant Mc- volved, or the more willful the conduct, the Kenzie’s motion and entered judgment in favor less ‘excusable’ it is.” Crutcher v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,
746 F.2d 1076, 1083 (5th Cir. 1984). Greater leniency should be exercised in finding 1 Under Local Rule 7.5E, “Each party opposing excusable neglect where failure to grant a a motion shall file . . . a memorandum of the motion for relief would result in a default reasons advanced in opposition . . . no later than judgment. In Blois v. Friday,
612 F.2d 938, the eighth calender day prior to the noticed hearing 940 (5th Cir. 1980) (per curiam), we stated: date.” 2 [The] Rule 60(b) Motion must be equita- counsel were aware of the requirements of the bly and liberally applied to achieve substan- pre-trial period and of counsel’s busy sched- tial justice. Doubt should be resolved in the ule. favor of a judicial decision on the merits of a case, and a technical error or a slight Accordingly, it was no abuse of discretion mistake by plaintiff’s attorney should not to deny the motion for relief. deprive plaintiff of an opportunity to pres- ent the true merits of his claims. The coun- AFFIRMED. tervailing factors are the defendants’ and society’s interests in the finality of judg- ments and the avoidance of prejudice. The plaintiff should not be punished for his attorney’s mistake absent a clear record of delay, willful contempt or contumacious conduct. (Citations omitted.) See also Hassenflu v. Pyke,
491 F.2d 1094, 1095 (5th Cir. 1974) (per curiam). Nonetheless, McKenzie has failed to show that her neglect was “excusable.” This court has regularly found “excusable neglect” in responding to a dispositive motion only in cir- cumstances where, through inadvertence, the party or its attorney did not receive notice. See e.g., Halicki v. La. Casino Cruises,
151 F.3d 465, 470 (5th Cir. 1998); Seven Elves, 635 F.2d at 399; Blois,
612 F.2d at 940. Mean- while, we have “expressly held that conflicts in scheduling do not provide sufficient cause to warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(1).” Pryor v. United States Postal Serv.,
769 F.2d 281, 287 (5th Cir. 1985). McKenzie offers no reason to excuse her late filing other than counsel’s schedule as a legislator. It is no more than a conflict in scheduling, and one that the district court gen- erously accommodated during the pre-trial period. There were no surprises or unusual intervening circumstances that caused the lateness of McKenzie’s reply––she and her 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 03-30653
Citation Numbers: 83 F. App'x 642
Judges: DeMOSS, Per Curiam, Smith, Stewart
Filed Date: 12/16/2003
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/1/2023