Court Opinion

ID: 9388821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 18:01:00.090296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:22.905197
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11954     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/21/2023     Page: 1 of 9

                                                       [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                     In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eleventh Circuit

                            ____________________

                                  No. 22-11954
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

       JAMES MCCONICO, JR.,
       as one of the Intestated Estate of his Father
       JMC Sr.,
                                                         Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       TOP GOLF INTERNATIONAL INC.,
       DOLF BERLE,
       ERIK ANDERSON,
       CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY,
       OLIVER G. BREWER, III, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 22-11954        Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 04/21/2023        Page: 2 of 9

       2                         Opinion of the Court                    22-11954

                                                         Defendants-Appellees.

                              ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Alabama
                       D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-01024-LSC
                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              James McConico, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district
       court’s denial of his post-judgment Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
       60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s refusal to vacate a
       prescreening order that prevented McConico from filing his civil
       complaint alleging Constitutional violations and various property
       claims under Alabama law. McConico alleged in his Rule 60(b)
       motion that the judgment was void because he had never con-
       sented to a magistrate judge presiding over his case and the magis-
       trate judge lacked jurisdiction to order his complaint be with-
       drawn. On appeal, he argues that his Rule 60(b) motion should
       have been granted because he never consented to a magistrate

       1 McConico’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED because the le-
       gal issues in this case are not complex, and McConico has shown himself to be
       capable of presenting his arguments. See Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193
       (11th Cir. 1993); Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (11th Cir. 1990).
USCA11 Case: 22-11954       Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/21/2023     Page: 3 of 9

       22-11954                Opinion of the Court                         3

       judge presiding over his case, so the magistrate judge did not have
       jurisdiction and the judgment was void.2
              When appropriate, we will review the denial of a Fed. R.
       Civ. P. 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Aldana v. Del Monte
       Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 741 F.3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2014).
       However, we review de novo a district court’s ruling upon a Rule
       60(b)(4) motion to set aside a judgment as void “because the ques-
       tion of the validity of a judgment is a legal one.” Burke v. Smith,
       252 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotation marks omitted).
       Pro se pleadings are generally held to a less stringent standard than
       pleadings drafted by attorneys and will be liberally construed.
       Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014).
              Under Rule 60(b) the court may relieve a party from a final
       judgment for several reasons, including fraud, a void judgment, or
       any other reason that merits relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), (4),
       and (6). Rule 60(d)(3) provides that “[t]his rule does not limit a
       court’s power to . . . set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.”
       Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). Rule 60(b)(6) motions must demonstrate
       that circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief.
       Aldana, 741 F.3d at 1355. Moreover, in order to prevail, an appel-
       lant must do more than show that a grant of his motion might have
       been warranted; he must demonstrate a justification for relief so
       compelling that the district court was required to grant relief.
       Maradiaga v. United States, 679 F.3d 1286, 1291 (11th Cir. 2012)

       2 McConico’s motion to substitute his brief on appeal is GRANTED.
USCA11 Case: 22-11954     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/21/2023    Page: 4 of 9

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-11954

       (citation and quotation omitted). “A motion for reconsideration
       cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present
       evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judg-
       ment.” Cummings v. Dep’t of Corr., 757 F.3d 1228, 1234 (11th Cir.
       2014) (quotation marks omitted).
              “Generally, a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) if the
       court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or
       of the parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due pro-
       cess of law. Burke, 252 F.3d at 1263 (quotation marks omitted).
              The jurisdiction and powers of magistrate judges are set
       forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636. Magistrate judges “may be assigned such
       additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and
       laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). A magistrate
       judge can be designated to hear even dispositive pretrial matters, if
       the magistrate judge’s actions are submitted, along with proper ob-
       jections thereto, for review by a district judge de novo. 28 U.S.C.
       § 636(b)(1)(B).
              A review of the course of proceedings in the district court
       will facilitate an understanding of our resolution. In July 2021,
       McConico filed a civil complaint against Top Golf International
       and its two CEOs, Dolf Berle and Erik Anderson; its parent com-
       pany, Callaway Golf Company and its CEO, Oliver G. Brewer, III;
       West River Group and its CEO, Erik Anderson ; Providence Equity
       Partners and its CEO, Jonathan M. Nelson; Dundon Capital Part-
       ners, and its CEO Thomas Dundon; Jefferson County Civic Au-
       thority; Jefferson County Commission (collectively, “the
USCA11 Case: 22-11954      Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 04/21/2023     Page: 5 of 9

       22-11954                Opinion of the Court                          5

       Defendants”). He alleged that he had bought property located in
       Alabama, but the seller later filed for foreclosure on the property.
       McConico further alleged that after the foreclosure, the Jefferson
       County Civic Authority unlawfully took possession of the property
       and sold it to the Defendants. He asserted that the Defendants’
       acquisition of the property was unlawful, and his ownership could
       not be divested. Additionally, he asserted that the Defendants
       failed to exercise reasonable care by failing to conduct a title search
       and that the Defendants had no valid defenses. He sought 31 mil-
       lion dollars in damages and the invalidation of the foreclosure and
       any contracts based on the foreclosure.
              The same day he filed his complaint, McConico filed a mo-
       tion to vacate a 1997 order that required prescreening of any filings
       by McConico (“1997 Prescreening Order”). He argued that the or-
       der should not be enforced because it was 24 years old, and enforc-
       ing the order would be “laughable” and violations of his First, Sev-
       enth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. McConico contended
       that as a paying litigant, his claims should not be subject to a frivol-
       ity analysis. He further argued that the Prison Litigation Reform
       Act (“PLRA”) warranted vacating the 1997 Prescreening Order and
       rendered it moot because he had three strikes under the PLRA, and
       therefore, could not bring a lawsuit. Docket Entry #3 is a notice
       that the case was assigned to a magistrate judge.
             On August 12, 2021, a magistrate judge entered an order to
       withdraw McConico’s complaint, refund his filing fee, and close
       the case because the 1997 Prescreening Order required that no
USCA11 Case: 22-11954      Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 04/21/2023     Page: 6 of 9

       6                       Opinion of the Court                  22-11954

       filing from McConico be accepted without prescreening by a judge
       or magistrate judge. Alternatively, the magistrate judge noted that
       McConico’s complaint was patently frivolous and without merit,
       the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and his claims were
       barred by relevant statutes of limitation.
               On September 8, 2021, the magistrate judge entered a sec-
       ond order, which noted that McConico had submitted three sets of
       documents that he wished to file. The magistrate judge denied his
       request to file the documents so far as the documents sought re-
       consideration of the rejection of his lawsuit against the Defendants,
       because his requests were patently frivolous and without merit.
       However, the magistrate judge concluded that his challenges to the
       1997 Prescreening Order should be considered because McConico
       had tried to pay the filing fee instead of filing in forma pauperis, and
       the length of time since the issuance of the order made it unclear
       whether the order was still necessary to protect the court’s docket
       from abuse. The magistrate directed the Clerk to file McConico’s
       filing related to his objections to the 1997 Prescreening Order and
       assign a district judge to the case to review the objections.
              McConico’s objections were entered into the record. (Doc.
       8). As relevant to challenging the 1997 Prescreening Order, McCo-
       nico argued that he never consented to a magistrate judge presid-
       ing over his case and the magistrate judge, therefore, did not have
       the authority to enforce the order. He objected to the court’s fail-
       ure to rule on his motion to vacate the 1997 Prescreening order,
       and he argued that his payment of the filing fee negated the 1997
USCA11 Case: 22-11954     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/21/2023    Page: 7 of 9

       22-11954               Opinion of the Court                        7

       Prescreening Order because only the claims of non-paying litigants
       are subject to review for frivolity.
               The case was reassigned to Judge Coogler. Judge Coogler
       reviewed McConico’s objections to the 1997 prescreening order
       and overruled them, noting that the order was put in place in 1997
       because at the time, McConico had filed over forty frivolous com-
       plaints since 1990. Additionally, the day before the magistrate
       judge ruled, McConico’s objections, the district court had refused
       to vacate the 1997 Prescreening Order in another case pending be-
       fore the district court at the time, ruling that McConico continued
       to file patently frivolous civil actions that were without merit and
       there was no reason to vacate the 1997 Prescreening Order. Thus,
       Judge Coogler, in McConico’s case, overruled McConico’s objec-
       tions to the 1997 prescreening order, thus approving the magistrate
       judge’s recommendation and enforcing the 1997 prescreening or-
       der.
              McConico appealed both the withdrawal of his complaint
       and the district court’s order refusing to vacate the 1997 Prescreen-
       ing Order, but both appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution
       after McConico failed to pay filing fees.
              In April 2022, McConico filed a motion for relief from judg-
       ment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), (4), (6) and
       60(d)(3). He argued that the Clerk of Court prevented his family
       from filing his lawsuit and then falsely claimed he had consented to
       a magistrate judge presiding over the case. He contended that the
       Clerk committed fraud because he never consented to the
USCA11 Case: 22-11954     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/21/2023    Page: 8 of 9

       8                      Opinion of the Court                22-11954

       magistrate judge, and without his consent, the magistrate judge
       never had jurisdiction to make a finding regarding the statute of
       limitations of his claims. McConico argued that the Clerk of Court
       and the magistrate judge conspired to “change the narrative” to
       provide the magistrate judge with subject matter jurisdiction using
       “fraudulently implied consent.”
              Judge Coogler denied the Rule 60 motion. He concluded
       that there was no fraud or any other reason to void the judgment.
       To the extent that McConico challenged the role of the magistrate
       judge, Judge Coogler held that the magistrate judge properly exer-
       cised his authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636 because the magistrate
       judge’s rulings were reviewed and accepted by the district court.
       And Judge Coogler rejected McConico’s challenges to the 1997 pre-
       screening order, relying on Eleventh Circuit cases approving such
       prescreening orders.
               McConico timely filed a notice of appeal. The case was ini-
       tially dismissed for want of prosecution, but it was reinstated after
       McConico moved to set aside the dismissal.
              Here, Judge Coogler did not abuse his discretion by denying
       McConico’s Rule 60(b) motion. Aldana, 741 F.3d at 1355. Judge
       Coogler did not err in rejecting McConico’s arguments based on
       Rule 60(b)(3) and (6) because there was no fraud or other reason to
       grant relief from the judgment. And Judge Coogler did not err in
       rejecting McConico’s arguments under Rule 60(b)(4) because
       McConico failed to show that there was a lack of jurisdiction or a
       violation of due process. Burke, 252 F.3d at 1263. Contrary to
USCA11 Case: 22-11954     Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 04/21/2023   Page: 9 of 9

       22-11954              Opinion of the Court                       9

       McConico’s suggestion, his consent to the magistrate judge’s ac-
       tions in this case was not required. The magistrate judge’s actions
       were reviewed by Judge Coogler who overruled McConico’s ob-
       jections. And Judge Coogler enforced the 1997 prescreening order.
             For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
       is
             AFFIRMED.