Hernandez v. Hernandez-Colon
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hernandez v. Hernandez-Colon. Read the opinion of the Court — 51 F.3d 264 →
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
April 5, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-2169
BENJAMIN HERNANDEZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
JOSE HERNANDEZ-COLON, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Peter John Porrata on brief for appellants. __________________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Plaintiffs-appellants Benjamin ____________
Hernandez and Liduvina Silva appeal the district court's
denial of their motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b),
seeking relief from the court's sua sponte dismissal of their ___ ______
complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b). We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
As the district court did not provide otherwise,
its dismissal was with prejudice and on the merits. See ___
LeBeau v. Taco Bell, Inc., 892 F.2d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 1989) ______ _______________
(dismissal for want of prosecution was on the merits and
"with prejudice" where judgment did not "otherwise state");
Nagle v. Lee, 807 F.2d 435, 442-43 (5th Cir. 1987) (where _____ ___
judgment did not state whether it was without prejudice, Rule
41(b) requires court to treat dismissal as being with
prejudice and on the merits).
We review dismissals pursuant to Rule 41(b) for
abuse of discretion. Pinero Capo v. United States, 7 F.3d ___________ _____________
283, 284 (1st Cir. 1993). We normally respect, and
encourage, the efforts of district courts to manage their
dockets decisively. Still, in this instance, the unrebutted
information in the record indicates that the plaintiffs were
prosecuting their case and had not disregarded any rule or
order. Although this may not have been clear at the time
that the district court dismissed the action sua sponte, the ___ ______
facts were brought out on the Rule 60(b) motion.
Only 91 days passed between the filing of the
complaint and its dismissal by the district court.
Plaintiffs had not disobeyed any court orders or ignored any
warnings, since none had been issued. Compare Pinero Capo, 7 _______ ____________
F.3d at 284 (affirming Rule 41(b) dismissal where appellants
had repeatedly violated discovery orders despite clear
warnings that dismissal would result and the court had first
imposed lesser sanctions). Nor had appellants violated any
procedural rules. Although plaintiffs failed to serve
defendants during that 91-day period, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)
and Local Rule 313.1(A) permit service to be made within 120
days of the filing of a complaint. Cf. Jardines Bacata, Ltd. ___ _____________________
v. Diaz-Marquez, 878 F.2d 1555, 1560 (1st Cir. 1989) (holding ____________
that it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss case against
certain defendants for lack of prosecution where plaintiffs
had complied with D.P.R.L.R. 313.1(B)).
This case is not before us on direct appeal of the
dismissal order, however. It is an appeal from the district
court's denial of plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) motion. Rule 60(b)
provides, in relevant part, as follows:
On motion and upon such terms as are
just, the court may relieve a party or
party's legal representative from a final
judgment, order or proceeding for the
following reasons: (1) mistake,
-3-
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect . . . .
We review denials of Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of
discretion. de la Torre v. Continental Ins. Co., 15 F.3d 12, ___________ ____________________
14 (1st Cir. 1994). "[T]he trial court's exercise of
discretion must be colored by a recognition that, because
Rule 60(b) is a vehicle for 'extraordinary relief,' motions
invoking the rule should be granted 'only under exceptional
circumstances.'" Id. (citations omitted). ___
Although plaintiffs failed to specify the section
of Rule 60(b) upon which they relied, it is apparent that
they sought relief for the reason of their "excusable
neglect" of their case. The Rule 60 motion referred to
"personal problems" between appellants (who are married) that
had hampered their ability to communicate with their
attorney, leading to their attorney's withdrawal and,
ultimately, to the dismissal of the complaint for failure to
prosecute. Plaintiffs also stated in their Rule 60(b)
motion, which was filed by the same attorney who had
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hernandez v. Hernandez-Colon, (1st Cir. 1995).
Hernandez v. Hernandez-Colon (Hernandez v. Hernandez-Colon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
De La Torre v. Continental Insurance
15 F.3d 12 (First Circuit, 1994)
Jeremy Carter, a Minor by and Through His Parents and Next Friends Douglas and Tina Carter, and Douglas and Tina Carter, Individually v. United States
780 F.2d 925 (Eleventh Circuit, 1986)
Charles Nagle v. Harry Lee, Sheriff of Jefferson Parish State of Louisiana, Lt. Clifford Montecino, Detective Patricia Laura, Deputy John Doe
807 F.2d 435 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)
Jardines Bacata, Limited v. Aniceto Diaz-Marquez
878 F.2d 1555 (First Circuit, 1989)
Carol Lebeau v. Taco Bell, Inc.
892 F.2d 605 (Seventh Circuit, 1989)