Sheila Dennis v. City of North Miami

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-13843 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 14, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-22126-CV-JAL
SHEILA DENNIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI, FL,
JOHN DOE,
Police Supervisor,
MIZJIAH,
badge #369,
WALDEN,
badge #345,
TENENT HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
DR. RODRIQUEZ PEDRO, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(December 14, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sheila Dennis, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of her
Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment. Dennis filed the Rule 60(b)(6)
motion to challenge the district court’s earlier order dismissing her § 1983
complaint for failure to state a claim.
I.
Dennis contends that the district court erred in denying her Rule 60(b)(6)
motion for relief from judgment. “We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for
abuse of discretion.” Crapp v. City of Miami Beach, 242 F.3d 1017, 1019 (11th
Cir. 2001). “Rule 60(b)(6), the catchall provision of the Rule, authorizes relief for
‘any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.’” Cano v.
Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)).
“[R]elief under this clause is an extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only
upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” Crapp, 242 F.3d at 1020
2
(alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted); see also Griffin v. Swim-Tech
Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984) (“The party seeking relief has the burden
of showing that absent such relief, an ‘extreme’ and ‘unexpected’ hardship will
result.” (quoting United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 119, 52 S. Ct. 460,
464 (1932))).
No “exceptional circumstances” are present in this case that lead us to
conclude that the district court abused its discretion under Rule 60(b)(6). Dennis
argues that the district court erred in denying her Rule 60(b)(6) motion because her
complaint had merit. That argument falls outside the scope of our review. See
Cavaliere v. Allstate Ins. Co., 996 F.2d 1111, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993) (explaining
that a Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used as a substitute for a proper and timely
appeal of the district court’s judgment); Glass v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 714
F.2d 1107, 1109 (11th Cir. 1983) (stating that an appeal from the denial of a Rule
60(b) motion “does not bring up the underlying judgment for review”). Because
Dennis has failed to show exceptional circumstances, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3