## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1632 E ARL K ELLY P R I NCE, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . M AR I LY N S TEW ART, e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees
.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Di v isi on. No . 05 C5849

—Ronal d A . G uzmán, Judge .
S UB MI TT ED J UL Y 29, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 2, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, C OFFEY, an d M A NI ON, Circ uit Ju dg es . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . E a r l Ke l l y P r i n c e wo r k e d f o r t he Chi ca g o Te ac he r s Uni o n un ti lhe was f ir ed i n the sum m ero f20 04. I n N ove m berhe fi l ed a c h ar ge ofdi scri m i nati on with the I l l i nois Dep ar tm ent o fH um an Rights. W hen al m osta ye ar passe d w i thout any r esponse f r om eit h er th e D ep ar tm en t o r th e E E O C , he filed th is l aw s u i t a g a i n s t t h e u n i o n a n d s e v e r a l o f i t s o f fi c e r s. The com pla i nt charg es em plo ym ent disc ri m i nati on i n vio l a-2 N o. 08

- 1632 t i o n o fT i t l e V I I o fthe Ci v i lR i g ht s Ac to f1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U. S
. C. §§ 20 00e et seq
. , a nd the Ag e Di s c r i mi na t i o n i n Em plo ymen tAc t, 2 9 U. S
. C. § § 6 21 et seq. ; rac e d isc rim in at ion in v i o l a t i o n o fthe Co ns t i t ut i o n, a c t i o nab l e u nd e r 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 9 8 1 ; a n d b r e a c h o fc o n t r a c tu n d e r I l l i n o i s l a w. The dis tr i ct c ou rtdi sm i sse d the s uiti n Decem ber20 06, w i thout prej ud i ce, because Pri nce had n ot obt ai ned a r i ghtto- sue l ett erfro m the EE OC
. 42 U
. S. C. § 2 000e

- 5( f ); 2 9 U. S
. C. § 6 26 ( e)
. The EEOC fi na l l y s en t hi m a r i g ht

- to
- su e l ett eri n A pri l 20 07, but i t was r etur ned by the posto f fi ce as unc l ai m ed. The Co m m i ss i o n mai l ed th e l ette r a g ai n, and Pri nce ac knowle dges hav i ng r ecei ved it o n J uly25
. N i ne da y s l at erhe fi l ed a m o ti o n t o r eo penhi s cas e. The di st r i ctj ud ge g r an te d the mot i o n, a s he was a uthor i zed to d o by Rul e 6 0( b) ( 6) however the m oti on was c ap tio n ed
. A hm ed v. D ragovich , 297 F.3d 201 , 208-09 (3d Cir. 20 02 ); cf. C ham be rs v . C ity of Fordyce, 50 8 F
. 3d 878, 88 1 ( 8th C ir. 20 07 ) (p e r c u ria m ). Th at su b se c tio n of R u le 6 0(b ) is b ro ad en ou gh (se e, e.g ., K la pp rott v. U nited Sta tes , 335 U
. S. 60 1, 61 4-1 5 (1 9 4 9 ); D ona ld v. Co ok C ounty Sheri ff ’s D ep’t, 95 F .3d 5 48 , 553 -54 , 558 (7t h C ir. 19 96 ); K nox v. Li chens te in , 654 F.2d 19, 21-22 (8th Cir. 1981))

— i t au th o r i ze s th e set ti ng as i de ofa final j ud gm ent o n any gr ound not spe c i fi e d i n t he p r e c e di ngs ub s e c t i o ns ( “ a nyo the r r eas on j usti fyi ng r eli effro m the oper ati on o fthe j ud gm ent”)

— to encom pass the r eopeni ng o f a p ro ceedi ng tha t had be en di s mi s s e d wi t ho utp r ej ud i c e b e c a us e i th a d b e e n f i l ed prem atur el y. But w hen a f ew days afterthe m oti on was grant ed Pr i nc e as k ed to wi th dr aw i t be ca us e he w oul d be o ut o fst ate and unabl e t o proce ed w i th the cas eN o. 08

- 1632 3 i m m edi ate l y, the j ud ge va c ate d the o rderthathe ha d enter ed re openi ng the cas e, and so the dism i ssa l o f Pr i nc e ’ s s ui ts t o o d. On Oc tobe r 2 3, 2 00 7, e xa ct l y 9 0 day s afte r re ce i vi ng th e r e- se ntr i g ht

- to
- su e l et te r, Pr i nc e fi l ed a se cond m oti on to re open. The j ud ge re sponded thre e weeks l ate r by denyi ng the m oti on a nd st ati ng t h at if Pri nce w anted to pursue hi s cl ai m s he w oul d hav e to b ring a ne w l aws ui t. He c o ul d no t do tha t, b ec au se b y no w the s t a t ut e o fl i mi t a t i o ns h a d e xp i r e d. I ns t e a d h e f i l e d a “mot i o n f o r c l ar i fi ca ti o n” i n whi chhe argue d tha t he s h o u l d b e a l l o we d t o p r o c e e d w i t h o u t f i l i nga n e w c o mpl aintb ecau se he ha d m o ve d ( th e r efer en ce i s to the seco nd m oti on) to r eopen his cas e withi n 90 days a fter r ec ei vi ngthe r i g ht

- to
- su e l et te r a nd s o wi thinthe sta tutes o fl i m i tat i ons appli cabl e t o hi s e m ploym entdisc r i mi na t i o n c l a i ms; t he 9 0 da y s r un f r o m the da t e o f r e c e i pt, n o to fma i l i ng . 4 2 U. S
. C. § 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( f ) ( 1 ) ; 2 9 U. S
. C. § 6 26 (e); Res ch ny v. ElkGr ovePla t i ng Co. , 41 4 F
. 3d 821, 82 3 (7t h C ir. 20 05 ); H ouston v. Sidl ey & Austin , 185 F. 3d 837, 83 8- 39 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 )
. T h e d i s t r i c tj u d g e d e n i e d th e mo t i o n, te l l i n gP r i n c e th a tl i t i g a t i o n i s n o ta “ y o - y o g a me ” a nd “yo u can’ t c om e i n her e e ver y o therweek a nd change yourm i nd abo ut wh ethero r not you w an t the c ase to go forw ar d .” Pri nce appeal s fro m the denia lo fhi s s eco nd m oti on t o re open. The defendants ar gu e th at w e l ack j uri sdic ti on ofthe appeal bec ause he di dn ’ t fi l e a not i ce o fappeal w i thi n 30 days o fthe or der di sm i ssi ng hi s co m pla i nt. B u t h e is no t a ski ng us to re vi ew thatdi sm i ssa l
. H is4 N o. 08

- 1632

seco nd m oti on t o re open, l i ke hi s fi rs t, was author i zed by Fed. R. Ci v. P. 60 ( b) ( 6)

— and i nd eed exem pli fi es th e u se of the rule a s “the prop er rem ed y for situat ions w he re a s er i es ofm i sund er sta nd i ngs t oo k pl ace between co uns el[ i n thi s ca se the l i ti g an t hi m se l f, s i nc e he ha d no l aw yer ] and the dist ri ct j ud ge. ” K nox v. Li chte nst ei n , sup ra , 654 F. 2d at 22; se e a l so Inte rnati ona l Ass ociati on of Heat & Fro st Insula to rs & A s besto s Wo rkers , 51 6 F
. 2d 504 ( 5th Cir
. 19 75) (per c uri am )
. A nd the denia l o fsuch a m oti on i s r evi ew ab l e i nd ependentl y o fthe ear l i ero rder d ism iss in g t h e c om p lain t. SEC v. Van Waeye nb e rghe, 28 4 F
. 3 d 8 1 2 , 8 1 4 ( 7 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( pe r c u r i a m)
. A nd despi te i t s c a pt i o n t he mot i o n t ha t Pr i nc e fi l e d wi t hi n 10 days f o r c lar ifica tio n of th e d en ial of h is s ec on d m ot ion ch allenge d t h e l egal basis f or the d en ialand i s the refore deem ed a m oti on to al ter or am end that denial w ith in th e m ean in g and 10-da y d ead li ne of Fed
. R. Civ. P. 59(e). M ar t i nez v. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 499 F.3d 721 , 727 (7th C ir. 2007 )
. Pri nce appeal ed w i thi n 30 days of the deni alo f that ti m el y m oti on , w hi ch m ake s hi s a pp ealal so ti m el y. Id. at72 4- 25. W e th us ha ve j ur i sdi ct i o n a nd c an p r o ce ed to the m er i ts o fthe s ec o nd mot i o n t o r eo pen . Pr i nc e fi l ed th e m o ti o n a s we s ai d o n the ni ne ti eth d ay afte r r ec ei vi ng the EEO C’s ri ght- to- sue l ett er . H ad he i nstea d refi l ed hi s o ri gi nal co m pla i nt thatday he would have been en ti tl ed to an adj ud i cati on of hi s cl ai m s because his s u i tw o ul d h a v e b e e n t i me l y . B u to fc o u r s e b y th e t i me th e m o ti o n was de ni ed i t was t o o l at e f o r hi m t o b r i ng a n e w s ui t ; h i s 9 0 da y s h a d e xp i r e d.N o. 08

- 1632 5 W hen the dist ri ct j ud ge gr anted Pr i nce’ s fi rs t m oti on t o re open thi s t ol d Pri nce

— a pr o s e l i ti g an t

— that m ovi ng to r eo penwas a pe r m i ss ibl e way t o p r o ce ed no w tha t he had obta i ned the r i ght- to- sue lett er . Pri nce s houl d not ha ve f o l l o wed up th e g r an t o fthe mot i o n b y a sk i ngthe cour t t o h alt pro ceedi ngs a nd r ei nstat e the di sm i ssa l o f his su it becau se he w as no t yet re ad y to proc eed
. Th ere w as as yetno schedule te l l i ng the part i es w hen to file what, s o the r e was no ne ed f o r Pr i nc e to wor r y abo ut not bei ng ab l e t o proce ed i m m edi ate l y with the further st ag es o fthe l i ti g at ion. H e m ade a mis ta k e i n a sk i ngthe j udg e to r eins ta te the di smi ss alo fthi s s uit, b utthe m i sta ke harm ed no o ne. I t m er el y i rr i tat ed the j ud ge. Th e de f e nd a nt s a r g ue t ha t t he s e c o nd mot i o n to re open was proper l y deni ed beca use Pr i nce fi l ed i t 97 days afte r the EEOC r e- se ntthe r i g ht

- to-sue l et te r . Butthe l i m i ta ti o ns pe r i o d i n both Ti tl e VI I a nd the ADEA b eg i ns t o r un, a s we s a i d, wh e n t he c l a i mant r eceiv es the letter, not w hen i t w as sent, and Pri nce cl ai m s t o have fi rs t re cei ved i t o n the n i neti eth day bef or e he fi l ed the m oti on. The defe nd ants, w ho have the burden ofpro vi ng tha t th e su it w as u n tim ely , e.g., M os e l y v . Boar d of Educ at i on , 43 4 F.3 d 52 7, 53 5 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); Trege nza v. Gr e atAm e r i ca n Com m uni ca t i ons Co. , 12 F .3d 71 7, 71 8 (7 th C ir. 19 93 ); E bbert v. D a im lerC hry sler C o rp . , 319 F.3d 1 0 3 , 108 (3d Cir. 2003), m ayb e ab l e to pr o ve th at Pr i nc e r ec ei ve d the fi r stmai l i ng but del iber ate l y o r car el ess l y r efused t o open i t, o r w as othe rwis e r esponsibl e f or not re adingi t; i n ei thero ftho se ev en ts th e lim ita tio n s p er iod w ou ld h av e b eg u n to ru n in A p ril 20 07 an d h is s u it w ou ld b e t im e-b ar re d
. Res ch ny v. Elk Grov ePla t i ng Co. , sup ra , 41 4 F
. 3d at 823; C o vin gton v.6 N o. 08

- 1632 Il li nois Secur ity Service, Inc. , 269 F.3d 863 , 865 (7th C ir. 20 01 ); Ker rv. M cDonal d’s Corp. , 427 F. 3d 947, 952 (11th Cir. 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m ); Grah am - H um phreys v. M e m phi s Br ooks M use um of Art, Inc. , 209 F.3d 55 2, 55 8 (6th C ir. 20 00 ); H un ter v. Stephe ns on Roofi ng, Inc ., 79 0 F .2d 47 2 (6 th C ir. 19 86 ). A m oti on t o re open m ay not be used to extend the s tatute o f l i m i tat i ons w hen ther e i s no gro und fortol l i ng the st atute
. Bu t a t thi s s tag e there i s no i nd i cation of w hy the l ett er in itia lly w as u n c laim ed , a n d so w e m u st (th ou gh on ly pr o vi si o na l l y ) t ak e Pr i nc e athi s wor d tha t, th rough n o f aul t o fhi s o w n, he fi rs t r ecei ved i t o n J uly25. St
. Lo ui s v. Alve r no Coll ege, 744 F.2d 131 4, 1317 ( 7th Cir. 1984). A ssum ing the se cond m oti on was ti m el y, we can’ t s ee any r eas on f or the dist ri ct cour t’ s havi ng denie d i t and by d oin g s o p re ve n te d P rin c e fro m p u rs u in g w h at for a ll w e know i s a m er i tor i ous c ase . Thi s i s no t a cas e l i ke Bal dwi n Co u n ty We l c omeCe n t e rv . Br own , 46 6 U.S
. 14 7 ( 1984 ) (per c uri am ) , wh er e i nstea d offi l i ng a com pla i nt within 90 d a y s o f receiving th e ri gh t-to-sue letter the plaintiff fi l e d th e l e t t e r a n d a s k e d th e c o u r tt o d e e m i ta c o mpl aint
. The di st r i ctc o ur t i n tha t ca se ha d do ne no th i ng to confuse the pl ai nti f fabo ut how to proce ed; n or had sh e an y o th er exc us e th atwoul d ha ve j us ti fi ed to l l i ng t h e 9 0

- d a y s t a t u t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s . I n t h i s c a s e , b y g r an ti ng t h e p lai nt iff’ s initi al m otion to reop en, the d istri ct cou rt l u l l e d h i m i n t o th i n k i n gh e d i d n ’ th a v e to r e fi l e h i s c o mp lain t; an d lullin g a p ro se litiga n t p ro vid es a va lid ba sis for invo k i nge qui tabl e to l l i ngt o s to p the r unni ngo fthe st atut e o fl i m i ta tions, as in War r e n v . D epar t m e ntof t he A r my, 867 F.2d 11 56 (8t h C ir. 19 89 )
. E q u i ta b le t ollin g is pr o pe r l y i nv o k e d i n a nyc a s e i n whi c h “ t he c o ur th a s l edN o. 08

- 1632 7 th e pl ai nt i f ft o b el i eve tha t sh e ha d do ne e ve r y th i ng re quir ed ofher, ” Bal dwi n Co u n ty We l c omeCe n t e rv . Br own , sup ra , 4 66 U. S
. a t 15 1, o r ha s “mi sl ed a par tyr eg ar di ngthe st ep s t h at th e p ar ty n ee d s t o t ak e t o p r es er ve a c laim .” Bri ns on v. Vaugh n , 398 F.3d 22 5, 23 0 (3 d C ir. 20 05 ); see , e.g., Seitz ing er v . R ead ing Ho spita l & M edic a l C enter, 16 5 F
. 3d 23 6, 24 0 (3 d C ir. 19 99 ); Browni ng v. AT& T Pa r adyn e, 12 0 F .3d 22 2, 22 7 (1 1t h C ir. 19 97 ); C arli lev. Spouth R outt Schoo l D is tr ictRe 3-J

, 652 F.2d 981 , 986 (10 th Cir. 1981); cf. Early v . Bank ers Li

f e& Cas ual ty Co. , 95 9 F
. 2d 75, 81 ( 7th C ir. 19 92 ); A nd erson v. U nisy s C o rp . , 47 F .3d 30 2, 30 6- 07 (8t h C ir. 19 95 ); M ar t i nez v. O rr, 7 38 F. 2d 1107, 11 12 (10th Cir. 1984). The j ud gm ent of the dist ri ct cour t i s ther ef ore rev er sed an d the ca se r emande d f o r fur th erpr o ce edi ng s co nsi st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n. R EV ER S ED AN D R EMAND ED .

9- 2- 09