2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-17-2007 

# Gordon v . M ono son P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-1233

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Gor don v . M onos on" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1095. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1095NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T

OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 06- 1233 T E DR OY GOR DON

v . DAV I D M ONO S ON; ERI C BE RRY

D avi d M onos on, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l Fro m the D istri ct C o u rt of the V i r gi n I s l ands D i vi s i on of St . T hom as and St . J ohn ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 84- cv- 00260) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. C ur t i s V . G om ez A r gued M ay8, 2007 B E FO R E : SL O V I T E R , ST A PL E T O N and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed M ay17, 2007)T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1343, and thi s C our thas 1 j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 G eor ge M . M i l l er( A r gued) 1212 B j er ge G ade C har l ot t e A m al i e, St . T hom as U SV I 00802 A t t orneyforA ppel l ee C har l es S. R us s el l , J r . ( A r gued) M o o re , D o d so n & R u ss e ll P. O . B ox 310, 5035 N or r e G ade C har l ot t e A m al i e, St . T hom as U SV I 00804 A t t orneyforA ppel l ant

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudge I n a t or tcas e i n 1988, a j ur yaw ar ded Tedr oyG or don $50, 000 i n damages , for w h ic h D a v id M o n o s o n a n d h is c o -d e f e n d a n t, E ri c B e rr y , w e re jo in tly a n d s e v e ra lly lia b le . M o n o s o n a p p e a l s f

r o m a n o r d e ro f

t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r td e n y i n g h i s mo t i o n u n d e rF e d . R. C iv . P . 6 0 (b ), w h ich h e m a d e in 2 0 0 5 , to s e t as id e th e ju d g m e n t ag a in st h im . W e w ill 1 a f f i r m. I I n J ul y1984, G or don s ued pol i ce of fi cer s M onos on and B err yand the G overnm entT he rel evan tpo rt i on of the m oti on st at ed as fo l l ow s: 2 F i nall y , defe nd ants w as [ sic ] nots erved forthi s pr ocee di ng and w as [ sic ] undert he i m pr es s i on t hatthe G overnm entat t orneym aypr ovi de a defe ns e. Pr i ort o t he comm ence m entof the tr i al s ai d defe ndant s w er e off3 o f th e V ir g in Is la n d s , a lle g in g th a t th e o f f ic e rs a tta c k e d h im w ith o u t p ro v o c a tio n . A lth o u g h th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l in iti a llyre p re se n ted th e g o v e rn m e n t an d th e o f f ice rs, it m oved dur i ng pr etr i al t o have the compl ai ntdi s m i s s ed aga i ns tthe governm entand for lea v e to w ith d ra w a s c o u n se l f o r M o n o so n a n d B e rry . T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted b o th m ot i ons on N ovember6, 1987. O n J une 2, 1988, the D i s t r i ctC our thel d a j urytr i al at w hi ch M onos on and G or don w er e notpr es ent , though at t orneyL eonar d Fr anci s ent er ed an appe ar ance on t hei rbehal f. T he j uryfound both offi cer s l i abl e, and aw ar ded G or don $50, 000, forw hi ch M onos on and B err yw er e j oi nt l yand s ever al l yl i abl e. O n J une 27, 1988, M onos on and B err yhad Fr anci s fi l e a mot i on s eeki ng r el i ef from the judgm ent unde r Fed. R . C i v. P . 59 and 60 (b) . A ccordi ng t o the officer s’ af fid av it s, theyw ere n o t i n fo rm ed o f th e tri al da te or o f th e A tt o rne yG en era l’ s w ith d ra w a l as th e ir c o u n se l. B o th o f f ice rs a ss e rte d th a t th e yw e re o u tsid e o f th e V irg in I s l ands on t he dayof tr i al and thatw hen theyr eturned— M onos on on J une 3 and Ber r yon J une 13— t heyw er e s urpr i s ed t o l earn t hata tr i al had bee n hel d i n t hei rabs ence and that theyw er e l i abl e t o G or don for$50, 000. T hough the mot i on focus ed on ar gui ng thatt he damage aw ar d w as gr os s l yexce s s i ve, i tal s o cal l ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s at t ent i on t o t he pr ocedur al defi ci enci es al l eged i n t he af fi davi t s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on,

2i s l and. Fur t her , t he under s i gn [ sic ] w as r et ai ned bythe Pol i ce Benevol ent

A ss o c iatio n to re p re se n t d e f e n d a n t. A ff idav itis at tach ed in su p p o rto f th is m att er. J . A . at97. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed M onos on’ s chal l enge t o i t s s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, 3 o n th e m e rits a n d M o n o so n d o e s n o t re n e w th a t ar g u m e n t o n a p p e a l. A ju d g m e n t in w hi ch the r ender i ng cour tl acke d s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on i s onl y“voi d” w i t hi n t he m eani ng of rul e 60( b) ( 4) w her e the court ’ s err orw as egr egi ous , and no ar guabl e bas i s for ju ri s d ic tio n e x is ts . See G s chw i nd v. C es s na A i r cr af tC o. , 2 3 2 F . 3 d 1 3 4 2 , 1 3 4 6 (10 th C ir . 2000) . M onos on does notr enew hi s chal l enge t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ubj ectm att er 4 and M onos on and B err ydi d notappea l . T hough the D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued a w r i tof exec ut i on on t he j udgm enton M ar ch 8, 1989, i tdoes notappea rfr om the r ecor d t hat G or don evercol l ect ed on the j udgm entorthathe had a nyfur t hercont actw i t h M onos on unt i l 2005. II O n Ja n u a ry2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , n e a rly1 6 y e a rs a f ter th e D istric t C o u rt issu e d th e w rit, G o rdo n fil ed a m o ti o n fo r an o ther w ri t of ex ec u ti o n o n the ju d g m en t. B ythat ti m e, B erry h ad d ied, as h ad the D istri ct Ju d g e w h o p reside d o v er the 1 9 8 8 jurytr ial . T h e C o u rt i s s ued the w r i ton A pr i l 21, 2005, cal cul at i ng the amountdue as $116, 760. 48, w hi ch r epr es ent ed the $50, 000 j udgm entand the i nt er es tthathad s i nce a ccrued. M o n o s o n mo v e d t o q u a s h t h e wr i ta n d f o rr e l i e f f r o m th e j u d g me n tu n d e rF e d . R. C iv . P . 6 0 (b ). M o n o so n a rg u e d th a t th e ju d g m e n t sh o u ld b e se t as id e a s v o id u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b)(4 ) be ca u se th e p roc ee d ing s v iolated h is du e p roc ess righ ts an d b ec au se th e C o u rt l acke d s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on aft eri tdi s m i s s ed the governm entfr om the ca s e. 3juri sd ict ion in this ap p ea l, an d itd o es n o t app ea r fro m the re co rd th at th e D istri ct C o u rt

erred in co n ti n u ing to ex erc ise su b ject m att er jurisdicti o n o v er the ca se, pa rt icularlyw h ere M onos on neverchal l enged the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s exer ci s e of j ur i s di ct i on i n 1988. 5 M o n o so n also arg u ed that the ju d g m en t sho u ld b e se t asi d e f o r “e x tr ao rdin ary circu m stan ce s” u n d er R u le 60 (b)(6 ). O n D ece m ber2, 2005, t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a hea r i ng and r ece i ved t es t i m ony fr om M onos on, Fr anci s , and an A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al w ho par t i ci pat ed i n t he p re tr ia l p h a s e o f

th e ju ry tria l. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n ie d M o n o s o n ’s m o tio n f o r r e lie f. I n i t s or derdeny i ng M onos on’ s m ot i on, the D i s tr i ctC our thel d t hatM onos on’ s m ot i on w as unt i m el y , havi ng been f i l ed 17 y ear s aft erthe j uryver di ctagai ns thi m w hen i tw as undi s put ed thatM onos on l earned of the ver di ctatl eas tas ear l yas J une 1988. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o hel d t hat , even i f M onos on’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on w as t i m el y , i tw as an i m pr operatt empt t o r el i t i gat e i s s ues al r eadydeci ded. T he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed that M o n o so n h a d p re v io u slyra ise d h is d u e p ro c e ss a rg u m e n ts in h is p o st-tria l m o tio n in 1988, and thathe di d notappea l fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of thatm ot i on. M onos on now appea l s t o t hi s C our tfr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al i n 2005 of hi s R ul e 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on. III R u le 60 (b) p rov ides that “[ o ]n m o ti o n an d u p o n su ch term s as a re just, the c o u rt m ayr el i eve a part yora part y ’ s l egal r epr es ent at i ve fr om a fi nal j udgm ent. . . forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons : . . . ( 4) t he j udgm enti s voi d; . . . ; or( 6) anyot herr eas on j us t i fy i ng6

re lief f ro m th e o p e ra tio n o f

th e ju d g m e n t.” T h e R u le a lso p ro v id e s th a t w h e re th e b a sis f o r a m o tio n u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b ) is n o t f ra u d , m ista k e , ina d v e rte n c e , su rp rise , ex c u sa b le n e g lec t, or n e w lyd isc o v e re d e v id e n c e , “[ t]h e m o tio n sh a ll b e m a d e w ith in a re a so n a b le tim e .” A A m o tio n u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ) f iled m o re th a n a y e a r a f ter f in a l ju d g m e n t is g e n e ra llyu n tim e lyu n les s “ e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s” e x c u se th e p a rty ’s f a ilu re to p ro c e e d s o o n e r. See ge ner al l y Ackerm an v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 3 4 0 U . S . 1 9 3 , 2 0 2 (19 5 0 ); K lappr ot tv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 3 3 5 U .S . 6 0 1 , 6 1 3 -1 4 (1 9 4 9 ); 1 1 C h a rl e s A la n W ri g h t e t a l., Federal P ract i ce & P rocedu re § 2864, at357 ( 2d ed. 1995) . M onos on’ s 2005 m ot i on w as nots peci fi c aboutw hatci r cumst ance s ent i t l ed hi m t o r el i ef unde rR ul e 60( b) ( 6) t hat w er e di s t i nctfr om hi s chal l enge t o t he j udgm entunderR ul e 60( b) ( 4) . I n hi s br i ef f i l ed w i th thi s C our t , M onos on r efe r s t o hi s cont ent i ons thathe w as i ncompet ent l yr epr es ent ed thr oughoutt he pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m , and as s ert s thatthe j udgm entagai ns thi m i s an “unexpe ct ed har ds hi p. ” W her e i ti s undi s put ed thatm os t , i f notal l , of the conduc tthat f o r ms th e b a s i s o f

M o n o s o n ’ s mo t i o n u n d e rRu l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) wa s k n o wn t o h i m i n 1 9 8 8 , we fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng thatthe por t i on of hi s m ot i on s e e k in g re lie f

u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )( 6 ) w a s u n tim e ly. S e e Mo o len a a r v . G o v ’t o f V irg in I s lands , 8 2 2 F .2 d 1 3 4 2 , 1 3 4 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (h o ld in g th a t a m o tio n b ro u g h t u n d e r R u le 60( b) ( 6) t w o y ear s aft ert he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s j udgm entw as unt i m el yw her e “the r eas on for7

the a tt ac k u p o n that jud g m en t w as a v ail ab le fo r att ac k u p o n the o ri g inal jud g m en t”). B W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s hol di ng thatM onos on’ s due pr oces s chal l enge underR ul e 60( b) ( 4) w as bas ed on the s ame gr ounds as hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on i n 1988, and thathi s fai l ur e t o appea l t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s 1988 deni al of thatm ot i on pr ecl uded hi m fr om r ai s i ng hi s due pr oces s chal l enge i n 2005. W e have hel d t hata R ul e 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on i s nots ubj ectt o t he gene r al r equi r ementof R ul e 60( b) thati tbe made “w i t hi n a r eas onabl e t i m e. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. O ne Tos hi ba C ol orTel evis i on , 213 F. 3d 147, 157- 58 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( en banc ) . I ti s al s o t rue thatw e have al l ow ed part i es t o fi l e mot i ons under R ul e 60( b) ( 4) w her e the gr ounds forthe voi dnes s chal l enge w er e ava i l abl e atthe t i m e of ju d g m e n t an d w h e re th e p a rtyc h a llen g in g th a t ju d g m e n t f a iled to p u rsu e th o se g ro u n d s in a n a p p e a l. Fr i edm an v. W i l s on Fr ei ghtFor w ar di ng C o. , 3 2 0 F . 2 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 7 (3d C ir . 1963) ( addr es s i ng t he appe l l ant ’ s R ul e 60( b) ( 4) chal l enge on the mer i t s aft erfi ndi ng an “i nexcus abl e fa i l ur e t o r ai s e an a vai l abl e cont ent i on bydi r ectappea l fol l ow ed byan a ttem p t to lit ig a te th e m a tter la ter b ya m o tio n f o r p o st-ju d g m e n t re lief

u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )” ); see al

so Kocherv. D ow C hem . C o. , 132 F. 3d 1225, 1230 ( 8th C i r . 2000) ( s t at i ng, a f ter f in d in g th a t th e p lain tiff s u se d th e ir R u le 6 0 (b )(4 ) m o tio n a s a n im p ro p e r su b stitu te foran appe al , t hat“K ocher ’ s R ul e 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on m aynevert hel es s s ucce ed . . . i f the ab sen ce o f ju ri sd ict ion w as so g lari n g as to co n sti tute a ‘total w an t of juri sd ict ion ’ or a p la in u s u rp a tio n o f

p o w e r’ s o a s to re n d e r t h e ju d g m e n t v o id f ro m its in c e p tio n .” ).8

W e have al s o s ugges t ed that , w her e a pa r t yhas al r eadyfi l ed anotherR ul e 60( b) m ot i on i n t he s ame cas e on othergr ounds and appe al ed fr om the deni al of thatm ot i on, th a t f a c t w o u ld n o t p re c lu d e th e p a rt yf ro m s u b s e q u e n tly f

ilin g a R u le 6 0 (b )( 4 ) m o tio n . See P age v. Schw ei ker , 7 8 6 F . 2 d 1 5 0 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 8 6 ) . M o n o s o n p o i n t s u s t o n o a u t h o r i ty, h o w e v e r, an d w e h a v e f o u n d n o n e , tha t re q u ire s a D istric t C o u rt to e n ter tain a R u le 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on w her e the movi ng par t yhas pr evi ous l yfi l ed a Rul e 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on on the s am e gr ounds and l os t . I n hi s m ot i on i n 2005, M onos on ar gued thatthe 1988 j udgm entagai ns thi m w as voi d forl ack of due pr oces s beca us e: ( 1) he w as notnot i fi ed of hi s t r i al dat e ort he fa ctt hatt he governm enthad w i t hdr aw n as hi s couns el , ( 2) the governm entabandone d hi m w i t houthi s know l edge a nd, w hi l e i tr epr es ent ed hi m i tact ed ag ains t his i n terest byasse rt ing in it s m o ti o n to d ism iss th at M o n o so n an d B erryw ere “ac t i ng as pr i vat e ci t i zens ” i n t hei ral t er cat i on w i t h G or don and ther ebyunderm i ni ng M onos on’ s abi l i t yt o ar gue fora def ens e of qua l i fi ed i m m uni t y , and ( 3) he w as r e p r e s e n t e d a ta t r i a l i n h i s a b s e n c e b ya n a t t o r n e yh e h a d n o ta u t h o r i z e d t o r e p r e s e n th i m, w ho w as i nt r oduced t o t he ca s e on the morni ng of tr i al , and w ho di d notpr es entany ev iden ce o n h is be h alf. A lth o u g h M o n o so n ’s 20 0 5 m o ti o n is be tt er w ri tt en an d m o re compre hens i ve than hi s 1988 m ot i on, both m ake the s ame chal l enge t o the j udgm ent a g a in s t h im , a n d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt re je c te d th a t c h a lle n g e in 1 9 8 9 . T he pr obl em w i t h M onos on’ s R ul e 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on i s thus notthati tcomes 17 y e a rs a f ter th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t o r th a t itis h is s e c o n d R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n in th isIn d en y ing M o n o so n ’s m o ti o n , the D istri ct C o u rtcit ed the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s 4 di s cus s i on of cl ai m and i s s ue pr ecl us i on i n N ew H am ps hi r e v. Mai ne , 532 U . S. 742 (2 0 0 1 ), an d G o rd o n a rg u e s in d e f e n se o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t th a t cla im pr ecl us i on barr ed M onos on’ s 2005 m ot i on. T hi s ar gum enti s i ncorr ect . A m ot i on under R ul e 60( b) i s a di r ectat t ack on a j udgm ent , and pr ecl us i on doctr i nes gener al l ydo not a p p ly. See P l otner v. A T &T, 2 2 4 F .3 d 1 1 6 1 , 1 1 7 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); W at t s v. P i nckne

y , 752 F. 2d 406, 410 ( 9t h C i r . 1985) ; 18 Moor e’s Feder alP r act i ce § 131. 02[1] [a] , at131- 1 3 . 9 case. R at her, i ti s that M on oson has al readyfi l ed a R ule 60(b)( 4) m oti on i n thi s case c h a llen g in g th e ju d g m e n t on the s am e gr ounds a n d lo st th a t ch a llen g e . A lth o u g h a R u le 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on m aybe fi l ed atanyt i m e, a D i s t r i ctC our tneed notcons i deranew the s ame ar gum ent s r ai s ed i n s ucce s s i ve mot i ons m er el ybeca us e thos e mot i ons s eek r el i ef u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )( 4 ). See Latham v. W el l s Far go B ank , 9 8 7 F . 2 d 1 1 9 9 , 1 2 0 3 -04 (5th C ir . 1993) ( “B yfi l i ng a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on fol l ow i ng the deni al of an e ar l i ervi r tual l yi dent i cal pos t - tr i al m ot i on, L atham i s us i ng t he s econd mot i on . . . as an att empt t o r es urr ectthe then expi r ed per i od i n w hi ch t o appea l the deni al of the fi r s tm ot i on. T hi s pr ocedur al p lo yc a n n o t b e a llo w e d to s u c c e e d .” ); 1 2 J a m e s W . M o o re , Moor e’s Feder alP r act i ce § 60. 69, at60- 218 t o 60- 218. 1 ( 3d ed. 2006) . B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our thad al r eady r ej ect ed M onos on’ s ar gum ent s t hatt he j udgm enti s voi d forl ack of due pr oces s , i tw as notr equi r ed t o cons i dert hos e ar gum ent s anew i n 2005 w her e no new ci r cumst ance s had a rise n o th e r th a n G o rd o n ’s r e n e w a l o f h is e f f o rts to c o llec t th e ju d g m e n t. 4 M o n o so n arg u es, ho w ev er, th at he sh o u ld n o t be b o u n d b ythe D istri ct C o u rt ’s 1989 or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on beca us e he di d notr ece i ve not i ce of thator der . G or donA tt he evi dent i aryhear i ng befor e the D i s t r i ctC our ti n 2005, Fr anci s t es t i fi ed that 5 h e in f o rm e d M o n o so n in 1 9 8 8 o r 1 9 8 9 th a t th e m o tio n h a d b e e n d e n ied . G o rd o n d ire c ts the C our t ’ s at t ent i on t o a form compl et ed bythe D eputyU ni t ed St at es M ar s hal i n 1989, w h ich a p p e a rs to in d ica te th a t th e M a rsh a l se rv e d M o n o so n ’s c o -d e f e n d a n t B e rryw ith h is w rit b yg iv in g it t o M o n o so n , w h o m th e M a rsh a l co n sid e re d to b e “ [ a ] p e rso n o f su itab le age a nd di s cr et i on t hen r es i di ng i n the def endant ’ s us ual pl ace of abode . ” M onos on t es t i fi ed, how ever , t hatFr anci s neveri nform ed hi m thathi s m ot i on w as deni ed, thathe w as nots erved i n 1989 w i t h a w r i tof exe cut i on on t he j udgm ent , and thathe fi r s tl earned thathi s 1988 m ot i on w as deni ed w hen he r ece i ved G or don’ s m ot i on fora w r i tof exec ut i on on t he j udgm enti n M ar ch 2005. 10 d ispu tes M o n o so n ’s ve rsi o n o f th e f ac ts, b u t eve n if M o n o so n ’s fa ctua l asserti o n s are 5 corr ect , hi s ar gum entm us tfai l . O urcour tand other s have he l d t hati m pl i ci ti n t he rul es se tti n g lim its o n th e tim e d u rin g w h ich a p a rtym a yf ile a n a p p e a l is a d u tyo f p a rties to in q u ire p e rio d ica llyin to th e sta tu s o f th e ir lit ig a tio n , an d lac k o f a c tu a l n o tice w ill gener al l ynotexcus e a pa r t yfr om t he cons equenc es of hi s fai l ur e t o fi l e a t i m el yappea l f ro m a n a d v e rs e ju d g m e n t. See Latham , 9 8 7 F .2 d a t 1 2 0 1 -0 2 ; H al lv. C m t

y. Mental He a lth C tr. o

f B e a v e r C o u n ty , 7 7 2 F .2 d 4 4 , 4 4 -4 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 5 ); Spi ka v. V i l l . of L o m b a rd , Ill . , 763 F. 2d 282, 285- 86 ( 7th C i r . 1985) . A l t hough M onos on’ s 1988 m ot i on ra ise d d u e p ro c e ss c o n c e rn s a b o u t h is ju rytrial, th o se c o n c e rn s a re in a p p lica b le to h is pos t - tr i al pr ocee di ngs . M onos on does notdi s put e thathe w as aw ar e of the exi s t ence of the pos t - tr i al pr ocee di ngs , and thathe as ked Fr anci s t o fi l e the 1988 mot i on forr el i ef fr om t he j udgm entagai ns thi m . U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , w e w i l l notexcus e M onos on fr om t he cons equenc es of hi s fai l ur e t o appea l fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng t he m o tio n .11 III F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.