NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL 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. 09- 1075

___________ DEN NI S J OH N C AM PBELL; M IN D Y JA Y E Z IE D -C A M P B E L L ; DA VED A R AC HEL C AM PBELL

v. T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ; W I LLI AM J . HEN DER SON , POSTM ASTER G ENER AL, UN I TED STATES POSTAL SERVI CE, POSTM ASTER G ENER AL; J OHN P OT T E R ( S UB S T I T UT I NG WI L L I AM J . HE NDE RS ON POSTM ASTER G ENER AL) ; UN I TED STATES POSTAL SERVI CE;

UNI TE D ST ATE S P OST AL S ERVI CE, AGENCY

( E . D . P. A . 01- cv- 04517) M I NDY J AYE ZI ED- CAM P BEL L, AN I NDI VI DUA L P RO P ER; DA VED A R AC HEL C AM PBELL, AN I ND I VI DU AL;

M I ND Y J AY E ZI ED- CA M PBELL, GU AR DI AN TO H ER M I NO R CH I LD R EBECCA ASH LEY C AM PBELL;

M I ND Y J AY E ZI ED- CA M PBELL, AS G UA RD I AN FOR H ER M I NO R CH I LD - SHA YN A N I CO LE CA M PBELL v. THE UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA ( E . D . P. A . 01- cv- 04626) DEN NI S J . CA M PBELL

v. W I LLI AM J . HEN DER SON , POSTM ASTER G ENER AL,M i ndyJ ay e Zi ed- C ampbel l fi l ed a not i ce of appea l on behal f of he r s el f and he rm i nor 1 chi l dr en. T he C l erk i nform ed Zi ed- C ampbel l thata non- att orneypar entm us tbe 2 UN I TED STATES POSTAL SERVI CE, POSTM ASTER G ENER AL; P OS T M AS T E R J OHN E . P OT T E R, P OS T M AS T E R G E NE RA L (S U B S T IT U T IN G W IL L IA M J. H E N D E R S O N P O S T M A S T E R G E N E R A L );

UNI TE D ST ATE P OST AL S ERVI CE ( E . D . P. A . 03- cv- 04839) D e n n is J o h n C a m p b e ll; M i ndyJ ay e Zi ed- C ampbel l , pr o s e and on b e h a lf o f D . C a m p b e ll, R . C a m p b e ll, S . C a m p b e ll,

A p p e llan ts

_________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N os . 01- cv- 04517, 01- cv- 04626, 03- cv- 04839 ( cons ol i dat ed) ( H onor abl e B ruce W . K auff m an)

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 23, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef Judge, J O R D A N and ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed A pr i l 2, 2010 )

_________ OPINI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C U R I A M. A p p e llan ts D e n n is J o h n C a m p b e ll (“C a m p b e ll”) a n dM in d yJa y e Z ied -C a m p b e ll ( “Zi ed- C ampbel l ”) s eek r evi ew of a f i nal or derbythe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtfor 1r epr es ent ed bycouns el i n or dert o pur s ue cl ai m s on behal f of he rchi l dr en. B ecaus e no

att orneyent er ed an appear ance w i thi n the t i m e s peci fi ed bythe C l erk, thi s appea l has proceed ed o nlyas t o the parent s. D es pi t e the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or derdeny i ng Z i ed- C ampbel l ’ s m ot i on t o r ei ns t at e her 2 c laim s, th e se c o n da m e n d e dc o m p lain t p u rp o rts to ra ise c laim s o n b e h a lf o f b o th C a m p b e ll an dZ ied -C a m p b e ll. 3 the East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ent er ed on D ece m ber1, 2008. W e w i l l aff i rm the D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. I . B ackgr ound A pp el l ants fi l ed thr ee rel at ed em ploym ent di scr i m i nati on com plai nts against C ampbel l ’ s form erempl oy er , the U ni t ed St at es Post al Servi ce ( the “Pos t al Servi ce” ) , as w el l as the Pos tm as t erG ener al and the U ni t ed St at es . I n O ct ober2003, pur s uantt o a vol unt arys t i pul at i on, the D i s tr i ctC ourtor der ed the cl ai m s of al l pl ai nt i ffs exce pt C a m p b e ll t o b e w ith d ra w n w ith p re ju d ice . Z ied -C a m p b e ll su b se q u e n tlym o v e dto r ei ns t at e hercl ai m s and, byor derent er ed on A ugus t18, 2004, the D i s tr i ctC ourtdeni ed the mot i on. Pr ocee di ng as t o C ampbel l al one, the D i s tr i ctC ourtcons ol i dat ed the thr ee act i ons . I n February2005, C ampbel l fi l ed pr o s e a s i xt een- counts econd a m ended compl ai ntr ai s i ng cl ai m s pur s uantt o, i nt eral i a, § 501 of the R ehabi l i t at i on A ctof 1973, 29 U . S. C . § 701 ets eq. , pr ovi s i ons of the C al i forni a LaborC ode, the U ni t ed St at es Co n s t i tu t i o n , a n dc o mm o n l a w. 2 I n the s econd a m ended c om pl ai nt , C ampbel l al l eges thatthe Pos t al Servi ce empl oy ed hi m i n L ans dal e, Penns y l vani a, fr om M ar ch unt i l M ayof 1986, w hen he w as4

fal s el yacc us ed of theftand w r ongful l yt erm i nat ed. A s a r es ul t , C ampbel l al l eges he w as di agnos ed w i th pos t - tr aumat i c s tr es s di s or derand ac ut e par anoi d di s or der . T he Pos t al Servi ce r ei ns t at ed C ampbel l i n O ct ober1987 and, tw o y ear s l at er , he tr ans ferr ed t o a new pos i t i on i n H at fi el d, Penns y l vani a. C ampbel l al l eges that , w hi l e atboth l ocat i ons , fel l ow e m p lo y e e s h a ra s s e dh im a n dth e P o s ta l S e rv ic e f a ile dto a c c o m m o d a te h is d is ab iliti e s . A ft erhe l eftthe Pos t al Servi ce i n 1989, C ampbel l al l eges thatform ercow orker s m ade d e ro g a to ry c o m m e n ts ab o u t h im to p ro s p e c tiv e e m p lo y e rs . B yor derent er ed on O ct ober18, 2005, upon D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on, the D i s tr i ct C o u rt d ism iss e de ig h t co u n ts o f th e se c o n da m e n d e dc o m p lain t w ith o u t p re ju d ice (c o u n ts one, four , fi ve, ei ght , ni ne, fourt een, fi ft een, and s i xt een) , on the gr ound thattheyr ai s ed n e w c laim s, w h ich e x c e e d e dth e sc o p e o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s p rio r g ra n t o f lea v e to amend. T he D i s tr i ctC ourtconvert ed the r emai nderof the mot i on i nt o a mot i on for su m m a ryju d g m e n t an dg ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t to D e f e n d a n ts a s to se v e n c o u n ts (c o u n ts tw o , six , se v e n , ten , ele v e n , tw e lv e , an dth irtee n ), co n c lu d in g th a t A p p e llan ts att empt ed t o as s ertcl ai m s underthe R ehabi l i t at i on A ctbutfai l ed t o al l ege thatthey tim e ly ex h a u s te da v a ila b le a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s . A ppel l ant s m oved forr econs i der at i on, ar gui ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourts houl d have a f f o rd e dth e m n o tic e a n da n o p p o rtu n ity to re s p o n db e f o re e n te ri n g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T he D i s tr i ctC ourtgr ant ed r econs i der at i on and vac at ed the s um m aryj udgm entport i on of its o rd e r, p e rm itt in g A p p e llan ts to f ile a n o p p o sitio n to su m m a ryju d g m e n t. A p p e llan ts5

did not do so, bu ti nst ead f i l ed a seri es of m i scel l aneo us m oti on s. O n N ov em ber 5, 20 08 , the D i stri ctC ou rtcon si dered the argu m ents i n A pp el l ants ’ m ot i ons t o the ext enttheypert ai ned t o the i s s ues on s um m aryj udgm ent . C oncl udi ng that A p p ell an ts fail ed to p rese n t new ev iden ce o r arg u m en ts de m o n str ati n g that su m m ary j udgm entw as notw arr ant ed, the D i s tr i ctC ourtr ei ns t at ed i t s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent i n favorof D efe ndant s as t o s even c ount s of the s econd a m ended c om pl ai nt . T he D i s tr i ct C ou rtden i ed A pp el l ants ’ r em ai ning m oti on s. T he D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or der s l eftA ppel l ant s w i th one r emai ni ng cl ai m underthe R ehabi l i t at i on A ct , bas ed upon the Pos t al Servi ce’ s al l eged de r ogat oryempl oym ent r efe r ence s . A ppel l ant s m oved t o di s m i s s thatcl ai m w i th pr ej udi ce s o theycoul d pur s ue an i m m edi at e appe al . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtgr ant ed the mot i on. P ro c e e d in g p ro se , A p p e llan ts tim e lyf iled a n o tice o f

ap p e a l. II. A n a ly sis A. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e exerci se p lena ryrev iew o v er the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of su m m aryjud g m en t. S ee S tr att o n v . E . I. du PontD e N emours & C o. , 363 F. 3d 250, 253 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew the fa ct s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o A ppel l ant s and w i l l aff i rm i f ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any mat e r i a l fa c ta ndD e fe nd a nt s a r e e nt i t l e d t o j ud gmen ta s a matt e rof l a w . Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6 (c); C elotex C o rp. v. C atrett , 4 7 7 U . S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 (19 8 6 ).6

A fede ralem ploy ee seeking rel i ef un der the R ehab i l i t at i on A ctm ustexh aust admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es pr i ort o fi l i ng s ui t . See Fr eed v. C ons ol . R ai l C orp. , 201 F. 3d 188, 192 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ; Spence v. Str aw , 54 F. 3d 196, 200 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . I n pert i nent part , appl i cabl e r egul at i ons r equi r e the aggr i eved pe r s on t o i ni t i at e cont actw i th a couns el orforthe Equal E m pl oym entO pportuni tyC om m i s s i on ( “E. E . O . C . ”) w i thi n 45 d a y s o f th e a lle g e dd is c ri m in a to ry c o n d u c t. 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 1 4 .1 0 5 . I n th i s c a s e , th e r e i s n o d i s p u t e th a tCa mp b e l l i n i t i a t e dc o n t a c twi th a n E. E. O. C. co u n selo r on e ti m e, i n M ay1 9 9 6 . B ase du p o n that E . E . O . C . co n tact, the D istri ct C o u rt det erm i ned thats um m aryj udgm entw as appr opr i at e foral l of the R ehabi l i t at i on A ct c laim s c o n c e rn in g e v e n ts in 1 9 9 2 o r e a rlier , b e c a u se C a m p b e ll fa iled to tim e lyin iti a te c o n tac t w ith a n E .E .O .C . co u n se lo r f o r th o se e v e n ts. S e e 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 1 4 .1 0 5 . W e w ill aff i rm the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s deci s i on. i. A p p e llan ts f

irst a rg u e th a t th e ya re e n tit led to a n e q u itab le e x c e p tio n to th e tim e ly admi ni s tr at i ve fi l i ng r equi r ementforthe 1992 and e ar l i ercl ai m s , bas ed upon the “cont i nui ng vi ol at i on theory . ” See, e. g. , W es tv. Phi l a. E l ec. C o. , 45 F. 3d 744, 754 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). “U n d er this th eo ry , the p lai n ti ff m ayp u rsue a . . . claim fo r discrim inato ry conductthatbegan pr i ort o the fi l i ng per i od i f he c an demonstr at e thatthe ac ti s partof an o n g o in g p ra c tic e o r p a tte rn o f d is c ri m in a tio n o f

th e d e f e n d a n t.” Id . (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). A ppel l ant s cont end theyes t abl i s hed an ongoi ng patt ern thatqual i fi es as a s i ngl e unl aw ful7

p r a c t i c e , s o th e Re h ab i l i t a t i o n Ac t ’ s 4 5 - d a yl i mi t a t i o n s p e r i o df o ri n i t i a t i n g E. E. O. C. c o n ta c t d id n o t b e g in to ru n u n til th e la s t in s ta n c e o f d is c ri m in a tio n . S e e id . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtconcluded thatA ppel l ant s “fa i l ed t o poi ntt o anyfac t s i n the r ecor d s how i ng thatthe conduc tgi vi ng r i s e t o thi s act i on, w hi ch s pans fourt een y ear s and thr ee pos toffi ces , i s ‘ m or e than the occ urr ence of i s ol at ed ors por adi c ac t s of i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on. ’ ” ( M emora ndum and O r der , O ct . 18, 2005, at5 n. 5 ( ci t i ng W es t , 45 F. 3d at754) ) . A ft ercl os el yr evi ew i ng the r ecor d, w e agr ee. W e ar e notper s uaded thatthe al l egat i ons i n the s econd a m ended c om pl ai ntes t abl i s h a per s i s t ent , on- goi ng patt ern of d is c ri m in a tio n th a t w a rr a n ts ap p lic a tio n o f th e “ c o n tin u in g v io la tio n ” d o c tr in e . ii. A ppel l ant s nextar gue i n favorof equi t abl e t ol l i ng of the 45- dayper i od for i ni t i at i ng E . E . O . C . cont actforevent s thatt ook pl ace i n 1992 and ear l i er . See Zi pes v. T rans W orl d A i rl i nes, Inc. , 45 5 U . S . 38 5, 39 3 (198 2) ( t i m el yfi l i ng w i th the E . E . O . C . i s a

“ r e q u i r e m e n tth a t , l i k e a s t a tu t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , i s s u b

j e c tt o . . . e q u i t ab l e t o l l i n g . ” ) . We have he l d thatequi t abl e t ol l i ng of the l i m i t at i ons per i od forpur s ui ng di s cr i m i nat i on c laim s is ap p ro p ria te in th re e p rin c ip a l situ a tio n s: “ (1 ) w h e re th e d e f e n d a n t h a s a c tiv e ly m isle dth e p lain tiff

re sp e c tin g th e p lain tiff’s c a u se o f a c tio n ; (2 ) w h e re th e p lain tiff in so m e e x tr ao rdin aryw ayh as b ee n p rev en ted f rom asse rt ing h is or h er righ ts; o r (3) w h ere the pl ai nt i ff ha s t i m el yas s ert ed hi s orherr i ght s m i s t akenl yi n the w r ong forum . ” O s hi ver v . L e v in , F ish b e in , S e d ra n & B e rm a n , 3 8 F .3 d1 3 8 0 , 1 3 8 7 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 4 ). A p p e llan ts8

b e a r th e b u rd e n o f

e stab lish in g th a t eq u itab le to lli n g ap p lies . S e e C o u rtn e yv . L a S a lle U ni v. , 124 F. 3d 499, 505 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( ci t i ng R os s v. B uckey e C el l ul os e C orp. , 980 F . 2 d6 4 8 , 6 6 1 (11 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 )). A ppel l ant s pr i m ar i l ycont end thatthei rps y chol ogi caldi s abi l i t i es cr eat ed an e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e th a t p re v e n ted th e m f ro m id e n tify in g d isc rim in a tio n w h e n it t o o kp l a c e . T h e Di s tr i c tCo u rtf o u n dth a tth e r e c o r dd o e s n o ts u p p o rtth i s c l a i m, a n dwe s ee no e rr ori n thi s fi ndi ng. A ppel l ant s m ade numer ous pr e- 1996 eff ort s t o pr ot es tthe P o sta l S e rv ice ’s a lleg e dd isc rim in a to ryc o n d u c t, by l o d g in g c o m p lain ts w ith th e M e rit Sy s t ems Pr ot ect i ons B oar d, C ampbel l ’ s col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng uni t , the N at i onal L abor R el at i ons B oar d, the O ffi ce of Per s onnel M anage m ent , C ongr es s m en, the Pr es i dentof the U ni t ed St at es , and s ever al Postm as t er s G ener al . ( See M emora ndum and O r der , O ct . 18, 2005 at8) . M or eover , as the D i s tr i ctC ourtcorr ect l ynot ed, m ent al i ncompet ence al one does nott ol l a fe der al s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons forcl ai m s agai ns tthe G overnm ent . See H ed g es v . U n it ed S tat es, 40 4 F . 3 d7 4 4 , 7 5 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A d d iti o n a lly , A p p e llan ts c o n ten dth e yw e re “ u n a w a re th a t th e o n g o in g in c id e n ts w er e i s s ues w hi ch bel onged i n the EE O forum . ” ( See A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at68) . T he D i s tr i ct C ourtconcluded thatA ppel l ant s di d notes t abl i s h thatdue di l i gence w oul d nothave r evea l ed the appr opr i at e admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocedur es . W e agr ee. E qui t abl e t ol l i ng r equi r es the exe r ci s e of r eas onabl e di l i gence . See, e. g. , Podobni k v. U . S. Post al Serv. , 409 F. 3d 584, 592 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . A ppel l ant s pur s ued a w i de var i etyof di ver s e r emedi es overthe9

c o u rse o f m a n yy e a rs. W e se e n o b a sis f o r c o n c lu d in g th a t, ha dth e ya c ted w ith reas on able di l i gen ce, theycou l d n ot have d et erm i ned y ears earl i er that the E . E . O . C . w as a p ro p e r f o ru m f o r th e irc la im s . iii . F in a lly , A p p e llan ts a rg u e th a t th e E .E .O .C . co n c lu siv e lyd e term in e dth a t th e ir admi ni s tr at i ve cl ai m s w er e t i m el yfi l ed and w e ar e bound bythatdet erm i nat i on. W e nee d n o t a d d re s s th e le g a l m e ri ts o f th is c la im b e c a u s e it la c k s re c o rd s u p p o rt . O n M ar ch 23, 1998, the Pos t al Servi ce i s s ued an a dm i ni s tr at i ve dec i s i on di s m i s s i ng the maj or i tyof C ampbel l ’ s cl ai m s for“unt i m el yE . E . O . C ouns el orcont act . ” S e e Ca mp b e l l v . He n d e r s o n , E. E. O. C De c . 0 1 9 8 3 5 5 0 , 1 9 9 8 W L 8 2 1 0 7 7 a t* 2 ( E. E. O. C. N ov. 10, 1998) ( di s cus s i ng Post al Servi ce de ci s i on) . O n appea l , the E. E . O . C . vaca t ed that p o rt ion o f th e d ec isi o n an do rde red the P o stal S erv ice to “ co n d u ct an inq u iry s uffi ci entt o enabl e i tt o m ake ar eas oned dec i s i on as t o w hethert o acc eptanyoral l of [ th e ] a lle g a tio n s . . . p u rs u a n t to a c o n tin u in g v io la tio n th e o ry.” S e e id . a t * 4 . U pon the Pos t al Servi ce’ s m ot i on, the E. E . O . C . gr ant ed r econs i der at i on and the part i es agr eed the r ecor d w as s uffi ci entt o perm i ta dec i s i on on the cont i nui ng vi ol at i on i s s ue. A ccor di ngl y , the E. E . O . C . det erm i ned that“al l the above al l egat i ons ar e not s uffi ci ent l yr el at ed t o the one t i m el yi nci dentt o be partof a c ont i nui ng vi ol at i on. ” C ampbel l v. H ender s on, E . E . O . C . D ec. 05990190, 1999 W L 334610 at*4 ( E . E . O . C . M ay 13, 1999) . T hus , as a fa ctual m att er , the E. E . O . C . concluded thatA ppel l ant s di d notA ppel l ant s ar gue thatthe E. E . O . C . ’ s deci s i on on r econs i der at i on has no eff ect 3 b e c a u s e th e P o s ta l S e rv ic e d id n o t tim e ly f ile its m o tio n f

o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n . (S e e , e .g ., A p p e llan ts’ B rie f

a t 4 2 ). S p e c if

ica lly , A p p e llan ts c o n ten dth a t th e m o tio n w a s la te b ec au se itw as p o stm ark ed af ter th e c lose o f b u sine ss o n the d ayitw as d u e. H o w ev er, th e E. E. O. C. f

o u n dth a tth e mo t i o n wa s t i me l y . S e e Ca mp b e l l v . He n d e r s o n , E. E. O. C. D ec. 05990190, 1999 W L 334610 at*1 ( E . E . O . C . M ay13, 1999) . W e s ee no ba s i s for di s turbi ng the E. E . O . C . ’ s fi ndi ng, w hi ch i s cons i s t entw i th appl i cabl e r egul at i ons . See 29 C . F. R . § 1614. 604. M or eover , even w i thoutr egar d t o the E. E . O . C . ’ s deci s i on on re c o n sid e ra tio n , this a rg u m e n t is u n p e rsu a siv e b e c a u se th e E .E .O .C .’s in iti a l d e c isio n d id n o t r e a c h a n yc o n c lu s iv e d e te rm in a tio n o n th e tim e lin e s s o f A p p e lla n ts ’ c la im s . 10 ti m elyinit iat e a d m inistrati v e p roc ee d ing s fo r ev en ts th at t o o kp lace in 1 9 9 2 an dea rl ier. 3 B. A ppel l ant s nexts eek r evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s w i thout p re ju d ice e ig h t co u n ts o f

th e se c o n da m e n d e dc o m p lain t (c o u n ts o n e , fo u r, f iv e , eig h t, nine, fou rt een, fi ft een, and si xteen) . B ecause the D i stri ctC ou rtcon cl ud ed thatthese co u n ts r aised claim s b ey o n dthe s co p e o f th e g ran t of leav e to a m en d , the D istri ct C o u rt d i r e c t e dth a t , “ [ i ] n f

a i rn e s s , P l a i n t i f

f s mu s tf i l e a mo t i o n t o a me n dp u r s u a n tt o F e d . R. C iv. P. 15 (a), see k ing leav e to a d dthes e n ew claim s. ” (S ee M em o ran d u m an dO rde r, O c t. 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , a t 3 ). W e f in dn o ab u se o f

d isc re tio n in th e D istric t C o u rt’s d isp o sitio n . S e e U .S . ex re l. A tki ns on v. Pa. Shi pbui l di ng C o. , 473 F. 3d 506, 524 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “The r ej ect i on of an unappr oved amended compl ai nti s notan abus e of di s cr et i on. ”) . A ppel l ant s fi l ed nothi ng th a tr e a s o n ab l yma yb e c o n s tru e da s a mo t i o n s e e k i n g l e a v e t o a me n dp u r s u a n tt o F e d . R. C i v. P. 15. A ppel l ant s ar gue that , due t o thei rpr o s e s t atus , the D i s tr i ctC ourts houl d not11

h av e re q u ir ed a R u le 15 m o ti o n , b u t i n stead sh o u ld h av e d ir ec ted th em to f il e a thir d amended compl ai nt . W e di s agr ee. A ppel l ant s fi l ed numer ous others ubm i s s i ons i n the D istri ct C o u rtan dco n sist en tl yd em o n str ated an ab il ityto u n d erstan dan dap p lyco u rt ru les a n dp ro c e d u re s. T h e ir p ro se sta tu s d o e s n o t ex c u se th e ir d e c isio n n o t to c o m p ly w i th the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s cl earand r eas onabl e i ns truct i on i n thi s i ns t ance . C. N ex t, A p p ell an ts co n tend that the D istri ct C o u rterred b yd en y ing Z ied-C am p b ell ’s m ot i on forl eave t o r ei ns t at e hercl ai m s . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtappr opr i at el ytr eat ed the m ot i on as a r eques tt o vaca t e the pr i orvol unt arydi s m i s s al bas ed upon new l ydi s cover ed e v id e n c e . S e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b )(2 ) (“ n e w lyd isc o v e re de v id e n c e th a t, w ith re a so n ab le dil i gen ce, cou l d n ot have b een d i scovered in t i m e t o m ov e for a new tri al ” m aygive r i se t o r el i ef f

r om a j udgm entoror der ) . W e r evi ew the dec i s i on forabus e of di s cr et i on. See C o lte c In d u s ., In c . v . H o b g o o d , 2 8 0 F .3 d2 6 2 , 2 6 9 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 2 ). I n herm ot i on, Z i ed- C ampbel l cl ai m ed “thats he r ece nt l ydi s cover ed thatone of he r u n c les w a s e x e c u ted in 1 9 3 6 f o r th e m u rd e r o f

a p o sta l tru c kd riv e r. . . . [a n d ] th is f a c t is b eh ind the P o st O ff

ice’s allege d lyil lega l acti o n s ag ains t her m o re tha n a h alf-ce n tury l at er . ” ( See O r der , A ug. 18, 2004, at1 n. 1) . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtconcluded thatthe mot i on di d notpr es entnew l ydi s cover ed evi dence l i kel yt o aff ectthe out come of Z i edC ampbel l ’ s cas e. See C om pas s T ech. , I nc. v. T s eng Labs. , I nc. , 71 F. 3d 1125, 1130 ( 3d12

C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (R u le 6 0 (b )(2 ) re q u ire s, in tera lia, n e w a n dm a ter ial e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld p rob ab lyh av e c h an g ed the o u tcom e o f th e tri al). O n appea l , A ppel l ant s ar gue onl ythatZ i ed- C ampbel l w as a pr operpl ai nt i ff f orthe claim s sh e w ishe dto raise; th eyo ff er n o b asis fo r co n clud ing that the D istri ct C o u rt ab u sed it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing the m o ti o n . W e c o n clud e tha t no “e x tr ao rdin ary ju s tif y in g c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” th a t w a rr a n t R u le 6 0 (b ) r e lie f a re ap p a re n t in th e re c o rd . See B ohus v. B el off, 950 F. 2d 919, 930 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . I n part i cul ar , w e s ee no ba s i s for c o n c lu d in g th a t ev id e n c e c o n c e rn in g e v e n ts in 1 9 3 6 w o u ldn o t h a v e b e e n d isc o v e ra b le s oonerthr ough the exe r ci s e of r eas onabl e di l i gence orthatZ i ed- C ampbel l es t abl i s hed that su ch ev iden ce is m aterial to the claim s sh e w ishe dto p u rsue . S ee id. M o reo v er, Z i ed- C ampbel l ’ s deci s i on t o vol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s hercl ai m s w ei ghs agai ns tR ul e 60( b) r el i ef. See C ol t ec, 280 F. 3d at273. D. Fi nal l y , A ppel l ant s cont end thatD efe ndant s ’ ans w ert o the s econd a m ended compl ai ntw as fi l ed one dayaft eri tw as due. B as ed upon the l at e fi l i ng, A ppel l ant s ar gue that the D istri ct C o u rterred b yd ec li n ing to en ter a d ef au ltjud g m en t i n their fa v o r. A m o n g o th e r th in g s, to b e e n tit led to a d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t ag a in st th e G o v e rn m e n t, A ppel l ant s bor e the “he avybur den” of es t abl i s hi ng “a c l ai m orr i ghtt o r el i ef byevi dence sati sfa ctoryto the co u rt . ” Jo rde n v . N at’l G u ard B u rea u , 8 7 7 F . 2 d2 4 5 , 2 5 1 n . 2 3 (3d C ir . 1989) ; s ee a l s o Fed. R . C i v. P. 55( d) . A ppel l ant s al s o w er e r equi r ed t o s how pr ej udi ce13

r es ul t i ng fr om the del ayand bad f ai th on the partof the D efe ndant s . See C hamber l ai n v. G i ampapa, 210 F. 3d 154, 164 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . B ecaus e A ppel l ant s m ade none of the req u ir ed sh o w ing s, the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n b yd ec li n ing to en ter a defaul tj udgm enti n thei rfavor . See i d. ( deni al of m ot i on fordefaul tj udgm enti s s ubj ect to re v ie w f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n ). I I I . C oncl us i on W e hav e cl osel yrevi ew ed the r ecord an d co nclude that none of A pp el l ants ’ r emai ni ng cl ai m s has m er i t . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i rm the j udgm entof th e D istric t C o u rt.