FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 26, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14606 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D
. C
. D ocketN o. 02 -003 71 -C V -C A R -5 R E N E E M C G H E E , i ndi vi dua l l y a nd a s ne xtof ki n a nd pers on al re pres ent at i ve of the E st at e of St e v e n J o h n s o n , a n d a s G u a r d i a n A d Li t e m f o rT e u n d r a H o llin s h e d ; T if f a n y J o h n s o n ; T y k e v ia J o h n s o n a n d R a s h a a d J o n e s , m in o r s , T E U N D R A H O L L I N S H E D , a m in o rc h ild , T I F F A N Y J O H N S O N , a m in o rc h ild , T Y K E V I A J O H N S O N , a m in o rc h ild , R A S H A A D J O N E S , a m in o rc h ild , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s S T A T E O F G E O R G I A , C I T Y O F M A C O N , G E O R G I A , a m u n ic ip a l c o rp o r a tio n , B I B B C O U N Y , G A , J I M W E T H E R I N G T O N , in d iv id u a lly , JA M E S E
. D O N A L D , i n h i s o ffi ci al cap aci ty2

a s C o m m is s io n e ro f

G e o r g ia D e p a r tm e n t o f C o rr e c tio n s , R O G E R S T E M B R I D G E , i n d i v i d u al l y an d i n h i s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as P robat i on O ff

i ce r f or the S t at e of G e o r g ia , e t a l.,
D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 26, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R enee M cG hee, on behal f of her se l f, the es t at e of herdece as ed son S t even J ohns on, a nd J ohns on’ s c hi l dr e n, appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rde ny i ng he rF e d. R
. C i v. P
. (“ R ul e” ) 60(b) m ot i on for r el i ef fr om j ud gm ent . F or the re as on s that f o llo w , w e a f

f irm . M cG hee f

i l ed a c ou nsel ed ci vi l ri gh t s c om pl ai ntal l egi ng i m prop erse ar ch
a nd s e i z ur e , due pr oc e s s a nd e qua l pr ot e c t i on vi ol a t i ons , f a l s e a rr e s ta nd i m pri sonm ent , al l un der 42 U
. S
. C
. § 1 98 3, conspi ra cyun der 42 U
. S
. C
. § 1 98 5(2),
a nd s t a t e l a w c l a i m s f

orR I C O vi ol a t i ons , w r ongf ul de a th, i nt e nt i ona l a nd ne gl i ge nt3

i nfl i ct i on of em ot i on al di stre ss , al l re l at i ng t o the arre stand d ea th o f herson S t even J o h n s o n , a n d v io la tio n o f th e o a th o f

o f f ic e . A c c o r d in g to M c G h e e , in 2 0 0 0 o f f ic e r s b e a t J o h n s o n a n d th r e w h is b o d y in the r i ve ra f

t e rJ ohns on e s c ape d f

r om pol i c e c us t ody f

ol l ow i ng hi s a rr e s tf

or vi ol at i ng the t erm s of hi s probat i on . John son’ s bod y w as re covered fr om the ri ver abou ta w ee k l at er . A ft ercond uct i ng an aut op sy , coroner M el i ss a S i m s c on cl ud ed th a tJ o h n s o n d i e d o f

a s p h y x i a d u e t o d r o w n i n g . Si ms f o u n d n o e v i d e n c e o f

tr a u ma
o r i n j u ry th atw o u l di m p l y fo u l p l ay o r h o m i ci d e. D i ssat i sfi ed w i th th e au t o p sy
r e s ul t s , M c G he e ha d tw o i nde pe nde nte xa m i na t i ons c onduc t e d by D r s . F r i s ta nd P os e y , both of

w hom c onf

i r m e d S i m s ’ s f

i ndi ngs T he c our tdi s m i s s e d s e ve r a l of the c l a i m s a nd gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nton the othe r s . T he c our ti s s ue d i t s de c i s i on on J ul y 19, 2005. M c G he e f

i l e d he rnot i c e of

appe a l , butthe n f

i l e d a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on f or
re l i ef fr om j ud gm ent , al l egi ng , i nt eral i a, thatshe had new l y di sc ov er ed evi dence i nc l udi ng a r e por tf

r om D r . H e nry J ohns on f r om C a l i f

orni a c ha l l e ngi ng the
ve r a c i ty of

the c or one r ’ s r e por t . H e nry J ohns on’ s r e por tw a s da t e d A ugus t5, 2005
a n d w a s b a s e d o n S im s ’s a u to p s y n o te s , th e to x ic o lo g y r e p o r t, th e c o r o n e r ’s r e p o r t, the i nci dentre po rt s, the j ury i nq uest , and p ost -m ort em ph ot og raph s. H e c on cl ud ed thatthe cause of dea th w as ho m i ci de fr om bl un tforc e traum a, and thatthere w asTh edis tric t c ourt no te d that be c a

us eMc Gh e e had fi le d her no tic e of a pp e al, t hec ourt only 1 had jurisdiction to deny

the motion on the merits. Mahone v. Ray, 326 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2003). The c ourt explained that, should the motion warrant relief, M cG hee w ould have to seek rema nd from the co urt o f ap p ea ls to return jurisdiction to the district court. I d. In an order date d Oct. 28, 2005 , this court stayed the briefingschedulependingthe district court’s de cision on the Rule 60(b) motion. 4 n o b a s is f

o rf in d in g th a t d e a th w a s d u e to a c c id e n ta l d r o w n in g . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, f i ndi ng tha tr e l i e f

w a s not 1
w a rr a nt e d be c aus e , appl y i ng the f i ve - pa r tt e s tunde rR ul e 60( b) ( 2) , the r e por tf r om H enryJohn son w as atm ostcum ul at i ve and i m peac hi ng , w as no tbase d o n an i nd ependentexam i nat i on , and w as avai l abl e bef ore the courthad g ra nt ed sum m ary ju d g m e n t o rw ith in th e tim e to f ile a m o tio n to a m e n d ju d g m e n t. M c G he e , now pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on a nd
m o v e s th is c o u r t to s u p p le m e n t th e r e c o r d w ith S im s ’s d e p o s itio n , in te r v ie w s w ith al l eged w i tness es , l ett er s f rom her a tt orneys , x-ra ys , ph ot og raph s a nd new spaper
a r t i c l e s . W i th r e ga r d t o the i nt e r vi e w s , a r t i c l e s , a nd l e tt e r s , w e de ny the m ot i on because these do cum ent s a re no tre l evantt o w hether the courtshou l d h ave grant ed th e R u le 6 0 ( b ) m o tio n , a n d th a t m o tio n is a ll th a t is p r o p e r ly b e f o r e th e c o u r t. W ith r e s p e c t to th e p h o to g r ap h s , x - r a y s , a n d d e p o s itio n , th is in f o r m a tio n is
r e le v a n t to th e R u le 6 0 ( b ) is s u e a n d w a s s u b m itte d to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. A c c o r d in g ly , w e g r a n t th e m o tio n w ith r e s p e c t to th e s e d o c u m e n ts . O n appe a l , M c G he e a r gue s tha tthe c our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ngMcGhe e does not c h al l enge thecourt’s r uling with re spect to a report by Dr. Car ter, a n 2 additional physician who reviewed theautopsy . There fore , she has abandone d this argument. Rowe v. Schreiber, 139 F .3d 1381, 1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998). Tothee xtent th at Mc Gh e eargue s th emerits o f t heun derlyinga c tio n, review o f a Rul e 3 60(b) de cision does not include a review of the underlying c ase. America n Ba nkers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Northwe stern Nat’l Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 1332, 1338 (11th Cir. 1999). 5 the R ul e 60(b) m ot i on t o con si der H enryJohn son’ s r eportbecause the re po rt di re ct l y c on tra di ct ed S i m s’ s r eportand w as re l evantand p robat i ve, and she act ed
w i th d ue di l i gence t o o bt ai n evi dence as qu i ckl y a s possi bl e. 2 W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng r e l i e f unde rR ul e 60( b) f

or
abus e of di s c r e t i on. W a dde l l v. H e nry C ounty S he r i f f’ s O f f i c e , 329 F
. 3d 1300, 3 1 3 0 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 )
. T hi s c ou rthas e st abl i shed a f i ve-partt es tfor the courtt o g ra ntre l i ef base d
u p o n n e w ly d is c o v e r e de v id e n c e u n d e rR u le 6 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) : ( 1) the e vi de nc e m us tbe ne w l y di s c ove r e d s i nc e the tr i a l ; ( 2) due d i l i g en ce o n th e p arto f th e m o v an tt o d i sco v er th e n ew ev i d en ce m u st be s how n; ( 3) the e vi de nc e m us tnotbe m e r e l y c um ul a t i ve or i m peac hi ng ; (4) the evi dence m ustbe m at er i al ; and (5) the evi dence m u s t b e s u c h th a t a n e w tr ia l w o u ld p r o b ab ly p r o d u c e a n e w r e s u lt. Id .; T o o le v . B ax ter H ea lth ca re C o rp ., 2 3 5 F .3 d 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 1 6 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). “A
m ot i on f ora ne w tr i a l unde rR ul e 60( b) ( 2) i s a n e xtr a or di na ry m ot i on a nd the
r e qui r e m e nt s of

the rul e m us tbe s tr i c t l y m e t . ” T ool e , 235 F
. 3d a t1316. A f t e ra thor ough r e vi e w of the r e c or d, w e a f

f i r m f orthe r e a s ons gi ve n i n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de r . M c G he e ha s note s t abl i s he d tha ts he a c t e d w i th due6

d ilig e n c e , a n d th e r e p o r t is c u m u la tiv e a n d , a t m o s t, im p e a c h in g . A cc ordi ng l y, w e G R A N T I N PA R T the m ot i on t o s uppl e m e ntthe r e c or d, p e r m ittin g M c G h e e to in c lu d e th e p h o to g r ap h s , x - r a y s , a n d S im s ’s d e p o s itio n ; in al l other r es pect s, w e DE NY the m ot i on t o sup pl em ent ; and w e AF F I RM the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of re l i ef
.