## Facts

- Lorenzo Brandon filed an Americans with Disabilities Act action against the Chicago Board of Education in federal district court, represented by Paul F. Peters and James C. Reho.
- The district court clerk mistakenly docketed a different attorney (“Paul A. Peters”) at a different address as Brandon’s counsel.
- Court notices, including notices of two status hearings, were mailed to the wrong attorney and address.
- Brandon’s actual counsel did not receive the notices, did not appear at the two status hearings, and the court dismissed the case for want of prosecution on December 13, 1995.
- In late 1996, Brandon’s counsel discovered the dismissal and related orders in the court file, including correspondence from the wrongly listed attorney stating he was not counsel of record.
- On December 16, 1996, Brandon moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to vacate the dismissal, filing the motion more than one year after judgment.
- The district court denied Rule 60(b) relief, and Brandon appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the clerk’s docketing error and resulting lack of notice justified relief from the dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
2. Whether Rule 60(b)(6) may be used to obtain relief when the asserted basis fits Rule 60(b)(1), thereby avoiding Rule 60(b)(1)’s one-year filing limit.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Rule 60(b) relief.
- The court held the asserted basis for relief was a “mistake” within Rule 60(b)(1), making the one-year deadline applicable.
- Because the motion was filed more than one year after entry of judgment, it was untimely.
- Rule 60(b)(6) was unavailable because the claim fell within another, more specific subsection of Rule 60(b).
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief, including in light of counsel’s duty to monitor the case’s status.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 60(b)(1) covers relief based on mistake or excusable neglect and is subject to a strict one-year deadline from entry of judgment.
- Rule 60(b)(6) is residual and unavailable when the asserted grounds are addressed by Rule 60(b)(1)–(5).
- A party may not recharacterize a Rule 60(b)(1) claim as a Rule 60(b)(6) claim to avoid the one-year limit.
- Counsel has an independent obligation to track the progress of a case; lack of notice caused by clerical error does not necessarily excuse noncompliance with Rule 60(b)’s timing requirements.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that relief from a dismissal based on court-clerk notice errors fell under Rule 60(b)(1) and therefore had to be sought within one year; Rule 60(b)(6) could not be used to evade that deadline, and the denial of relief was not an abuse of discretion.


Brandon v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 143 F.3d 293 (7th Cir. 1998)