Court Opinion

ID: 9839115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-11 19:01:01.696322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:58.961713
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-12415    Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 09/11/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-12415
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       JEAN JOCELYN MERILIEN,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       WARDEN,
       Warden, Johnson State Prison,
       MS. GRANISON,
       Kitchen Manager, Johnson State Prison,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-12415      Document: 41-1       Date Filed: 09/11/2023      Page: 2 of 5

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   21-12415

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cv-00056-DHB-BKE
                           ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Jean Jocelyn Merilien, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial
       of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to vacate the
       district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defend-
       ants based on his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, ar-
       guing that the district court should have granted him relief on the
       basis of newly discovered evidence.
              We review denials of motions under Rule 60(b) for abuse of
       discretion, except that review under Rule 60(b)(4) is de novo. Burke
       v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2001). Abuse of discretion
       review is narrow, “addressing only the propriety of the denial or
       grant of relief and does not raise issues in the underlying judgment
       for review.” Maradiaga v. United States, 679 F.3d 1286, 1291 (11th
       Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted). In order to prevail, “the losing
       party . . . must demonstrate a justification for relief so compelling
       that the district court was required to grant [the] motion.” Id. (quo-
       tation omitted).
               Arguments not raised before the district court and argu-
       ments not raised in the initial brief are considered forfeited. Walker
       v. Jones, 10 F.3d 1569, 1572 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Campbell,
USCA11 Case: 21-12415      Document: 41-1       Date Filed: 09/11/2023      Page: 3 of 5

       21-12415                Opinion of the Court                          3

       26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 95
       (2022). We will not review forfeited issues unless the issue is ex-
       traordinary enough to excuse forfeiture and:
              (1) the issue involves a pure question of law and re-
              fusal to consider it would result in a miscarriage of
              justice; (2) the party lacked an opportunity to raise the
              issue at the district court level; (3) the interest of sub-
              stantial justice is at stake; (4) the proper resolution is
              beyond any doubt; or (5) the issue presents significant
              questions of general impact or of great public con-
              cern.
       Campbell, 26 F.4th at 872–73.
               Rule 60(b) creates three relevant grounds under which a lit-
       igant may move for relief from a final judgment. Rule 60(b)(2) per-
       mits relief when new evidence has been discovered that could not,
       with reasonable diligence, have been discovered in time to move
       for a new trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). Rule 60(b)(4) permits relief
       when the court lacked jurisdiction or denied the litigant due pro-
       cess. United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271
       (2010). Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief in extraordinary circumstances
       not captured by the other Rule 60(b) categories. Kemp v. United
       States, 142 S. Ct. 1856, 1861 (2022).
              To be entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(2), the movant must
       show that: (1) the evidence is newly discovered; (2) they exercised
       due diligence in discovering it; (3) the evidence is not cumulative
       or merely impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) with the
USCA11 Case: 21-12415      Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 09/11/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  21-12415

       new evidence the outcome would probably be different. Waddell
       v. Hendry Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 329 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 2003).
       These requirements must be strictly satisfied. Id. For instance, a
       party has not exercised due diligence when they seek to vacate on
       the basis of new evidence from a witness whom they knew of but
       did not seek to depose before summary judgment. Id. at 1310.
              We may recharacterize a pro se litigant’s argument in order
       to match the rule framework to the substance of the argument.
       Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381–82 (2003).
              We may affirm the district court on any ground supported
       by the record. Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley, 694 F.3d 1294, 1309 (11th
       Cir. 2012).
              Here, as an initial matter, Merilien’s issues not raised before
       the district court are forfeited. Arguments he only raised in his re-
       ply brief are likewise forfeited. Merilien’s issues are not so extraor-
       dinary as to justify excusing his forfeiture, so we need not consider
       the forfeited arguments.
               We construe Merilien’s argument under Rule 60(b)(2) be-
       cause he asserts that the state court clerk correspondence is newly
       discovered evidence. Although he claims that his argument falls
       under Rules 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6), those Rules do not correspond
       to the substance of his argument. Even if his argument were cor-
       rect, it would not show a lack of jurisdiction or denial of due pro-
       cess, so Rule 60(b)(4) is inapposite. Further, because Rule 60(b)(2)
       captures the argument’s substance, Rule 60(b)(6) is inapposite.
USCA11 Case: 21-12415      Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 09/11/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       21-12415               Opinion of the Court                          5

               Under Rule 60(b)(2), Merilien did not exercise due diligence
       in discovering the state court clerk’s evidence because the clerk
       would have known when his filings were received at the time De-
       fendants raised the exhaustion issue in their motion for summary
       judgment, but Merilien did not seek the clerk’s evidence until after
       summary judgment was granted and his first motion to vacate was
       denied. Because Merilien did not exercise due diligence, the district
       court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. While the
       district court did not base its denial on failure to exercise due dili-
       gence, we may affirm on any ground supported by the record.
              AFFIRMED.1

       1 All pending motion are DENIED.