FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 24, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 06- 12883 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 8 0 7 6 4 - C V- DT KH C U R T I S S H E R R O D , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s P A L M B E A C H C O U N T Y S C H O O L D I S T R I C T , A R T H U R J O H N S O N , D r ., F R A N G I B L I N , C H R I S T I N E H A L L , D r ., J E A N N E B U R D S A L L , 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 orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 24, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

I n th is ap p e a l, w e c o n s id e rw h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in d en yin g a p lain ti ff’s p o st-trial m o ti o n s, w h ich so u g h t relief f ro m th e d istrict co u rt’s order grant i ng j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw for the defendant . F or the re as on s s et f o rth mo r e f

u l l yb e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. C urt i s S he rr od, af

orm e rs c hool t e a c he rw i th the P a l m B e a c h C ountyS c hool D i s tr i c t( the D i s tr i c t ) , pr oc e e de d t o tr i a l a ga i ns tthe D i s tr i c ton hi s c l a i m tha the s u f f e r e d r e ta lia tio n f

o re x e r c is in g h is F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to f r e e s p e e c h , in vi ol a t i on of

42 U . S . C . § 1983. A f

t e rthe j uryr e turne d ave r di c ti n f a vorof S he rr od, the di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d the D i s tr i c t ’ s m ot i on f orj udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l aw , fi nd i ng thatS herr od fa i l ed t o est abl i sh thatthe S choo l B oard, the fi nal po l i cy m akerfor the D i stri ct , w as l i abl e und er§ 1 98 3. S ee M on el l v. N ew Y ork C ityD e p ’t o f

S o c . S e rv s ., 4 3 6 U .S . 6 5 8 , 9 8 S .C t. 2 0 1 8 , 5 6 L .E d .2 d 6 1 1 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . S he rr od m ove d t o s e ta s i de the or de ror , a l t e rna t i ve l y , f orr e c ons i de r a t i on. T he di stri ctcourtsum m ar i l y deni ed S herr od ’ s m ot i on , and S herr od soug htre l i ef un der F e d .R .C iv .P . 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) a n d m o v e d f o ran e w tr ia l a n d to a lte rth e ju d g m e n t, pu rs uantt o F ed. R . C i v. P . 59 . T he di stri ctcourtsum m ar i l y deni ed these m ot i on s a s w e ll. B o th S h e rr o d , p r o c e e d in g p r o s e o n ap p e a l, a n d th e D is tr ic t a r g u e th e m e r its o f th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s o r d e rg r a n t i n g j u d g m e n ta s am a tt e ro f l a w. Ho we v e r , we3

p re v io u sly d ism isse d th is ap p ea l, in p ar t, fo r lac ko f ju risd icti o n b ec au se S h erro d ’s not i c e of appe a l w a s unt i m e l yt o appe a l the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f i na l j udgm e nta nd the d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n t o setasi d e th e o rd er g ran t i n g th e m o t i o n fo r j u d g m en tas a m a tte ro f la w , o r , a lte rn a tiv e ly , f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . W e a llo w e d th is ap p e a l to pr oc e e d w i th r e s pe c tt o the or de rde ny i ng S he rr od’ s R ul e 59 a nd R ul e 60( b) m o tio n s . T h u s , o n lyth is o r d e ris p r o p e r lyb e f o r e u s . H o w e v e r , w e lib e r a lly construe S herr od ’ s pro se appel l at e bri ef s a s achal l enge t o thi s order . S ee T annenb aum v. U ni t ed S t at es , 14 8 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 63 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of R ul e 59( e ) a nd R ul e 60( b) m ot i ons a nd m ot i ons f or ane w tr i a l f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. W i l l a r d v. F a i r f i e l d S . C o. , I nc . , 472 F . 3d 817, 821 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( R ul e 60( b) ) ; L a m be rtv. F ul t on C ounty , G a . , 253 F . 3d 588, 59 5, 59 8 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ) ( new tri al and R ul e 59(e)) . “A d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e s its d is c r e tio n if

it ap p lie s a n in c o rr e c t le g a l s ta n d a r d , f o llo w s im p r o p e rp r o c e d u r e s in m a k in g th e d e te rm in a tio n , o rm a k e s f in d in g s o f

f a c t th a t a r e c le a r lye rr o n e o u s . A d is tr ic t c o u rt m a ya ls o ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b yap p ly in g th e la w in a n u n r e a s o n ab le ori nc orr e c tm a nne r . ” K l a yv. H um a na , I nc . , 382 F . 3d 1241, 1251 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . “ A di s tr i c tc ourtbyde f i ni t i on abus e s i t s di s c r e t i on i n r e l y i ng on a n e rr one ous in te rp r e ta tio n o f

ap p lic ab le la w .” J a c k s o n v . C r o s b y , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 2 9 0 , 1 2 9 5 ( 1 1 th C i r . ) , c e rt . de ni e d, 127 S . C t . 240 ( 2006) . A di s tr i c tc ourta l s o abus e s i t s di s c r e t i on4

b y m a k in g ac le a re rr o ro f ju d g m e n t. A m lo n g & A m lo n g , P .A . v , D e n n y ’s , I n c ., 45 7 F . 3d 11 80 , 11 88 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). A di stri ctcourtm aygranta new tri al “ for any of the re as on s f or w hi ch new tri al s have her et ofore been grant ed i n act i on s a tl aw i n the court s of the U ni t ed S t a t e s . . . . ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 59( a ) . “ [ G ] r a nt i ng m ot i ons f orne w tr i a l t ouc he s on the tr ia l c o u rt’s tr a d itio n a l e q u ityp o w e rto p r e v e n t in ju s tic e a n d th e tr ia l ju d g e ’s d u ty t o g uard the i nt egri ty and fa i rnes s of the proceedi ng s bef ore hi m . . . . ” C hri st op her v. F l or i da , 449 F . 3d 1360, 1366 n. 4 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . “ T he onl ygr ounds f or gr a nt i ng [ aR ul e 59( e ) ] m ot i on a r e ne w l y - di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e orm a ni f e s te rr or s of l aw or fa ct . ” I n re K el l og g, 19 7 F . 3d 11 16 , 11 19 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). R ul e 59(e) m ay n o t b e u s e d “to r e litig a te o ld m a tte r s , r a is e a r g u m e n t o rp r e s e n t e v id e n c e th a t c o u ld ha ve be e n r a i s e d pr i ort o the e ntry of j udgm e nt . ” M i c ha e l L i ne t , I nc . , v. V i l l a ge of W el l i ng t on , F l a. , 40 8 F . 3d 75 7, 76 3 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ).

“ A ‘ si gn i fi cant l y hi gh er ’ st andard i s gener al l y use d t o d ec i de w hether a m ova nti s e nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f unde rR ul e 60( b) . ” V a nde rbe r g v. D ona l ds on, 259 F . 3d 1321, 1326 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . “ A n appe a l of arul i ng on aR ul e 60( b) m ot i on, how e ve r , i s na rr ow i n s c ope , a ddr e s s i ng onl ythe pr opr i e tyof the de ni a l orgr a ntof r e l i e f a nd doe s notr a i s e i s s ue s i n the unde r l y i ng j udgm e ntf orr e vi e w . B e c aus e of thi s l i m i t a t i on, the l a w i s c l e a rtha tR ul e 60( b) m a ynotbe us e d t o c ha l l e ngeS ubs e c t i on s i x author i z e s r e l i e f f or“ a nyothe rr e a s on j us t i f y i ng r e l i e f

f r om 1 the op er at i on of the j ud gm ent . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 60 (b)( 6). 5 m i st ak es o f l aw w h i ch co u l d h av e b een rai sed o n d i rectap p eal . ” A m . B an k ers In s. C o. of F l or i dav. N w . N a t ’ l I ns . C o. , 198 F . 3d 1332, 1338 ( 11th C i r . 1999) (ci t at i o n s o m i tt ed ). R u l e 6 0 (b )(6 ) m o t i o n s 1 m ustdem on stra t e thatthe ci rc um st ance s are suff i ci ent l y e xtra ordi nary to w a rr a n t r e lie f

. E v e n th e n , w h e th e rto g r a n t th e r e qu e s te d r e lie f is . . . a m atter f

o r th e d istrict co u rt’s so u n d d iscr etio n . T h e ap p ellan t’ s b u r d e n o n ap p e a l is h e a v y . [ I ]t is n o t e n o u g h th a t ag r a n t o f th e [ R u le 60( b) m ot i on] m i ghtha ve be e n pe rm i s s i bl e orw a rr a nt e d; r a the r , the d e c is io n to d e n yth e m o tio n . . . m u s t h a v e b e e n s u f f ic ie n tly unw a rr a nt e d a s t o a m ountt o a n abus e of di s c r e t i on. C a no v. B a ke r , 435 F . 3d 1337, 1342 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e rt . de ni e d, 127 S . C t . 387 ( 2006) ( c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ( a lte r a tio n s a n d o m is s io n s in o r ig in a l) . M or e ove r , the m ova nt“ m us tde m ons tr a t e aj us t i f i c a t i on s o c om pe l l i ng tha tthe [di stri ct ] courtw as re qu i re d t o v ac at e i t s order . ” I d. (a l t er at i on i n o ri gi nal ). U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd c ons i de r a t i on of the pa rt i e s ’ br i e f

s , w e do not d is c e rn a n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f S h e rr o d ’s m o tio n s . S herr od ’ s argum ent s i n these m ot i on s r el at i ng t o the S choo l B oard’ s l i abi l i ty und er M on el l w er e r ai se d p re vi ou sl y i n h i s i ni t i al m ot i on t o rec on si der. S ee M i chae l L in e t, 4 0 8 F .3 d a t 7 6 3 ( h o ld in g th a t R u le 5 9 ( e ) m a yn o t b e u s e d “to r e litig a te o ld m a tt e r s ” ) . M or e ove r , the s e a r gum e nt s a r e one s tha ts houl d ha ve be e n r a i s e d i n a t i m el y di re ctappeal of the order. S ee A m . B ankers , 19 8 F . 3d at13 38 (“ [T ] he l aw6

is c le a rth a t R u le 6 0 ( b ) m a yn o t b e u s e d to c h a lle n g e m is ta k e s o f la w w h ic h c o u ld have been rai se d o n d i re ctappeal . ”) . In addi t i on , af t erre vi ew i ng the evi dence p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s a n a ly s is o f th e S c h o o l B o a r d ’s liab ility unde rM one l l i n i t s or de rgr a nt i ng j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w , w e ha ve notf

ound ei ther am ani fe sterror w arrant i ng re l i ef un der R ul e 59(e), K el l og g, 19 7 F . 3d at 1119; s e e a l s o A yba rv. C r i s pi n- R e y e s , 118 F . 3d 10, 16 ( 1s tC i r . 1997) ( r e c ogni z i ng tha tthi s rul e “ e nabl e s the c ourtt o c orr e c ti t s ow n e rr or s a nd thus avoi d u nn ec es saryappel l at e procedures . ”) (e m ph as i s a dd ed), or any e xtra ordi nary c i r c um s t a nc e s m a ki ng the de ni a l of R ul e 60( b) ( 6) r e l i e f

unw a rr ant e d, C a no, 435 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 2 . W e lik e w is e h o ld th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in fai l i n g t o g ran ta n ew tri al o n th ese g ro u n d s. S herr od al so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d i sm i ss i ng i nd i vi du al d e f e n d a n ts n a m e d in h is f

o u rth a m e n d e d c o m p la in t, ac la im h e r a is e d o n lyin h is R u le 5 9 m o tio n . S h e rr o d h a s f a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its d i scret i o n i n d en yi n g t o g ran ta n ew tri al o r reco n si d er th e d i sm i ssal o f th ese defe nd ant s. W e not e thatnam i ng these part i es as defe nd ant s i n thei r off i ci al c ap a c itie s w o u ld h a v e n o e f f e c t o n th e D is tr ic t’s liab ilityu n d e rM o n e ll in th is c a s e . S e e B u s b yv . C ityo f

O r la n d o , 9 3 1 F .2 d 7 6 4 , 7 7 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ( “B e c au s e s u its ag ai n sta m u n i ci p al o ffi cer su ed i n h i s o ffi ci al cap aci ty an d d i rectsu i t s ag ai n st7

m uni c i pa l i t i e s a r e f

unc t i ona l l ye qui va l e nt , the r e no l onge re xi s t s ane e d t o br i ng offi ci al -c apac i ty a ct i on s a gai nstl ocal go vernm entoffi ci al s, because l ocal g o v e rn m e n t u n its c a n b e s u e d d ir e c tly( p r o v id e d , o f c o u r s e , th a t th e p u b lic e n tity r e c e iv e s n o tic e a n d a n o p p o rtu n ityto r e s p o n d ) .” ) . I n l i ghtof

the f or e goi ng, the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng S he rr od’ s R ul e 59 a n d R u le 6 0 ( b ) m o tio n s is AF F I RME D.