Stokes v. Merson ( 2002 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 01-2003
JULIE INTRAVAIA STOKES,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
STANLEY R. MERSON and
CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND
RETARDATION SERVICES, INC.
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Julie Intravaia Stokes on brief pro se.
Rebecca J. Wilson, Sandra P. Criss and Peabody & Arnold LLP,
on brief for appellee Stanley R. Merson.
Jocelyn M. Sedney, BBO and Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten on
brief for appellee Center for Mental Health and Retardation
Services, Inc.
June 20, 2002
Per Curiam. The district court dismissed this case
for a lack of prosecution and a failure to comply with the
court's discovery orders. Almost a year later, plaintiff moved
for relief from the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)
and/or 60(b)(6), alleging that she had been impeded from
prosecuting her case and complying with discovery orders by an
episode of mental illness. The district court denied relief
from the judgment in an endorsed order and plaintiff appeals
this denial of her Rule 60(b) motion.
The summary denial of relief under Rule 60(b) was not
an abuse of discretion. Plaintiff's unsupported allegation
that she suffered from mental illness was insufficient to
excuse the neglect of her lawsuit under Rule 60(b)(1),
especially since she was represented by counsel throughout the
proceedings below. There was no showing that plaintiff was
incapable of cooperating with her attorney, who also filed the
Rule 60(b) motion on her behalf, and no showing that the
attorney was in any way disabled. Rule 60(b)(6) is not an
alternative path for pursuing relief based on "excusable
neglect" and, anyway, plaintiff has not shown that she was
"faultless in the delay" as would be required for any relief
under Rule 60(b)(6). See Davila-Alvarez v. Escuela de Medicina
Universidad Central Del Caribe, 257 F.3d 58, 63 (1st Cir.
2001).
Affirmed.
-2-