Terence Richards v. James Stevens

Opinion

NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwith ȱFed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1

United States Court of Appeals ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604

SubmittedȱJuneȱ24,ȱ2009* DecidedȱJuneȱ24,ȱ2009

ByȱtheȱCourt:

No.ȱ08Ȭ4193 AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrict TERENCEȱBRUCEȱRICHARDS, CourtȱforȱtheȱNorthernȱDistrictȱofȱIllinois, ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPlaintiffȬAppellant, EasternȱDivision.

v. No.ȱ07ȱCȱ1907

JAMESȱE.ȱSTEVENS, MatthewȱF.ȱKennelly, DefendantȬAppellee. Judge.

OȱRȱDȱEȱR

Inȱtheȱlatestȱchallengeȱtoȱhisȱbankruptcyȱcase,**ȱTerenceȱRichardsȱsuedȱtheȱtrustee, JamesȱStevens,ȱforȱhisȱroleȱinȱhavingȱRichards’sȱbankruptcyȱdismissed.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourt dismissedȱtheȱcomplaintȱbecauseȱRichardsȱdidȱnotȱseekȱpermissionȱfromȱtheȱbankruptcy courtȱbeforeȱsuingȱtheȱtrustee.ȱȱSeeȱInȱreȱLinton,ȱ136ȱF.3dȱ544,ȱ545ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ1998).ȱȱRichards filedȱanȱappealȱfromȱthatȱdecision,ȱbutȱweȱdismissedȱitȱforȱfailureȱtoȱpayȱtheȱdocketingȱfee.ȱ FourteenȱmonthsȱlaterȱRichardsȱaskedȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱtoȱvacateȱitsȱdismissalȱunderȱFederal

* ȱTheȱappelleeȱwasȱnotȱservedȱwithȱprocessȱinȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱandȱisȱnot participatingȱinȱthisȱappeal.ȱȱAfterȱexaminingȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱtheȱrecord,ȱweȱhaveȱconcluded thatȱoralȱargumentȱisȱunnecessary.ȱȱThus,ȱtheȱappealȱisȱsubmittedȱonȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱthe record.ȱȱSeeȱFED.ȱR.ȱAPP.ȱP.ȱ34(a)(2). ** Richardsȱhasȱalreadyȱchallengedȱthisȱbankruptcyȱpetitionȱseveralȱtimes.ȱȱSee Richardsȱv.ȱStevens,ȱ310ȱF.ȱApp’xȱ898ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009);ȱRichardsȱv.ȱHSBCȱTech.ȱ&ȱServs.ȱUSA, Inc.,ȱ303ȱF.ȱApp’xȱ356ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2008);ȱRichardsȱv.ȱStevens,ȱ299ȱF.ȱApp’xȱ579ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2008). No.ȱ08Ȭ4193 Pageȱ2

RuleȱofȱCivilȱProcedureȱ60(b)(4)ȱonȱtheȱgroundȱthatȱtheȱdecisionȱwasȱvoid.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourt deniedȱthatȱrequest,ȱandȱRichardsȱnowȱappeals.ȱ

Ruleȱ60(b)(4)ȱisȱintendedȱforȱcasesȱwhereȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱissuingȱtheȱunderlying judgmentȱlackedȱjurisdictionȱorȱactedȱinȱaȱmannerȱinconsistentȱwithȱdueȱprocess.ȱȱMarquesȱv. Fed.ȱReserveȱBankȱofȱChi.,ȱ286ȱF.3dȱ1014,ȱ1018ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2002);ȱRobinsonȱEng’gȱCo.ȱPensionȱPlan &ȱTrustȱv.ȱGeorge,ȱ223ȱF.3dȱ445,ȱ448ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2000).ȱȱOnȱappeal,ȱRichardsȱraisesȱnoȱchallenge basedȱonȱjurisdictionȱorȱdueȱprocess,ȱandȱinsteadȱattacksȱtheȱunderlyingȱdismissalȱofȱhis complaint.ȱȱButȱRuleȱ60(b)ȱisȱnotȱaȱpermissibleȱsubstituteȱforȱappealingȱtheȱjudgment,ȱsee, e.g.,ȱBellȱv.ȱEastmanȱKodakȱCo.,ȱ214ȱF.3dȱ798,ȱ800Ȭ01ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2000),ȱandȱtheȱtimeȱtoȱpursueȱan appealȱhasȱlongȱpassed.ȱȱAccordingly,ȱtheȱjudgmentȱisȱ

AFFIRMED.