Background
Trellis Kyle Day sued Amazon.com Services, L.L.C., alleging that Amazon discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability and approve a leave of absence. After allowing the pro se plaintiff to amend, the district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation, granted Amazon’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and dismissed with prejudice Day’s claims under the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Day did not timely appeal that judgment.
Nearly one year later, Day sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (2), (3), and (6). The district court denied the motion, and Day timely appealed that denial. His appellate brief principally attacked the original dismissal and asserted, without developed analysis, that denying Rule 60(b) relief was an abuse of discretion.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the underlying Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Day did not appeal that judgment within 30 days, and his Rule 60(b) motion—filed nearly a year later—did not extend the appeal deadline. A timely appeal from the denial of Rule 60(b) relief also did not bring the underlying judgment before the court.
The court had jurisdiction to review the denial of Rule 60(b) relief but concluded that Day abandoned that issue through inadequate briefing. Even under the more liberal standards applied to pro se litigants, his conclusory assertions did not identify an applicable Rule 60(b) ground, apply its requirements to his case, or cite supporting authority. The court therefore affirmed the denial of Rule 60(b) relief.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion does not bring the underlying judgment up for review.
- A Rule 60(b) motion filed more than 28 days after judgment does not extend the time to appeal that judgment.
- Pro se appellants must still develop their arguments and reasonably comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28; conclusory assertions may result in abandonment.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict jurisdictional consequences of missing the deadline to appeal a civil judgment. A litigant generally cannot use a later Rule 60(b) motion—and an appeal from its denial—to obtain appellate review of the original merits ruling.
It also illustrates that liberal construction of pro se briefing does not relieve an appellant of the obligation to explain why the district court erred under the governing legal standard.