Case Name: Julie Intravaia STOKES, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Stanley R. MERSON and Center for Mental Health and Retardation Services, Inc. Defendants, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-20
Citations: 38 F. App'x 622
Docket Number: No. 01-2003
Parties: Julie Intravaia STOKES, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Stanley R. MERSON and Center for Mental Health and Retardation Services, Inc. Defendants, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 38
Pages: 622–622

Head Matter:
Julie Intravaia STOKES, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Stanley R. MERSON and Center for Mental Health and Retardation Services, Inc. Defendants, Appellees.
No. 01-2003.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
June 20, 2002.
Julie Intravaia Stokes on brief, pro se.
Rebecca J. Wilson, Sandra P. Criss and Peabody & Arnold LLP, on brief, for ap-pellee Stanley R. Merson.
Jocelyn M. Sedney, BBO and Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten on brief, for appellee Center for Mental Health and Retardation Services, Inc.
Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The district court dismissed this case for a lack of prosecution and a failure to comply with the court's discovery orders. Almost a year later, plaintiff moved for relief from the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) and/or 60(b)(6), alleging that she had been impeded from prosecuting her case and complying with discovery orders by an episode of mental illness. The district court denied relief from the judgment in an endorsed order and plaintiff appeals this denial of her Rule 60(b) motion.
The summary denial of relief under Rule 60(b) was not an abuse of discretion. Plaintiffs unsupported allegation that she suffered from mental illness was insufficient to excuse the neglect of her lawsuit under Rule 60(b)(1), especially since she was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings below. There was no showing that plaintiff was incapable of cooperating with her attorney, who also filed the Rule 60(b) motion on her behalf, and no showing that the attorney was in any way disabled. Rule 60(b)(6) is not an alternative path for pursuing relief based on "excusable neglect" and, anyway, plaintiff has not shown that she was "faultless in the delay" as would be required for any relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Davila-Alvarez v. Es-cuela de Medicina Universidad Central Del Caribe, 257 F.3d 58, 63 (1st Cir.2001).
Affirmed.