Lillo Ex Rel. Estate of Lillo v. Bruhn , 522 F. App'x 508 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-14832 Date Filed: 06/13/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14832
Non-Argument Calendar
_______________________
D. C. Docket No. 3:06-cv-00247-MCR-EMT
STEPHEN LILLO,
as personal representative of
the Estate of John R. Lillo, Jr.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DARRELL A. BRUHN,
MATTHEW M. HOLT, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 13, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-14832 Date Filed: 06/13/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Stephen Lillo, in his capacity as personal representative of the estate of John
R. Lillo Jr., appeals the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 60(b) motion for relief from summary final judgment. After
review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Cavaliere v. Allstate Ins. Co., 996
F.2d 1111, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993) (reviewing the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for
abuse of discretion). As the district court reasoned in its Order dated August 16,
2012, while Lillo’s motion requests relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a catchall provision
providing for relief from a final judgment for “any other reason that justifies
relief,” his claim actually falls under Rule 60(b)(2), which provides for relief from
a final judgment based on “newly discovered evidence . . . .”
“[A] party may not avail himself of the broad ‘any other reason’ clause of
60(b) if his motion is based on grounds specified in” clauses 60(b)(1) through (5).
Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 n.11 (1988) (some
internal quotations omitted). This prevents clause (6) from being used to
circumvent the 1-year limitations period that applies to clauses (1) through (3).
See id.Because Lillo’s motion falls within Rule 60(b)(2), it cannot be brought
under Rule 60(b)(6)’s catchall provision. Lillo did not file his motion within the
time allowed under Rule 60(b)(2), and instead, filed it more than two years after
2
Case: 12-14832 Date Filed: 06/13/2013 Page: 3 of 3
the court entered its orders granting summary judgment to the Defendants, making
Lillo’s motion untimely. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of
Lillo’s motion for relief from summary final judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3