Pamela Jones v. US
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:09-cv-00129-MSD-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998842728]. Mailed to: Pamela Jones. [11-2267]
Appeal: 11-2267
Document: 11
Date Filed: 04/30/2012
Page: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2267
PAMELA M. JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:09-cv-00129-MSD-DEM)
Submitted:
April 20, 2012
Decided:
April 30, 2012
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pamela M. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 11-2267
Document: 11
Date Filed: 04/30/2012
Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Pamela
M.
Jones
appeals
the
district
court’s
order
denying her motion for reconsideration and motion for extension
of time to perfect service of summons.
We vacate and remand.
We review the district court’s order for an abuse of
L.J. v. Wilbon, 633 F.3d 297, 304 (4th Cir.), cert.
discretion.
denied, 132 S. Ct. 757 (2011).
A district court abuses its
discretion
or
by
acting
arbitrarily
irrationally,
failing
to
consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise
of
discretion,
premises.
or
relying
on
erroneous
factual
or
legal
Id.
Unfortunately, the district court’s recorded analysis
was minimal.
It stated only that it found Jones’ arguments
unpersuasive and unconvincing.
By doing so, we are left to only
guess at the factors the district court considered in reaching
its decision or the weight it afforded to any individual factor.
The order does give us one clue as to what the district court
found determinative:
it stated that Jones could have simply re-
filed her complaint and properly served the Government upon the
district
court’s
dismissal
motion for reconsideration.
rather
than
pursue
an
appeal
and
Thus, lack of prejudice to Jones
appears to have factored—perhaps significantly—into the district
court’s decision.
However, Jones stated multiple times in her
amended motion for reconsideration that she was precluded by the
2
Appeal: 11-2267
Document: 11
Date Filed: 04/30/2012
Page: 3 of 3
Federal Tort Claims Act’s six-month statute of limitations from
re-filing
her
complaint
upon
the
district
court’s
dismissal.
Thus, the district court’s dismissal—even though it was without
prejudice—effectively
claim.
terminated
her
ability
to
pursue
her
As best as we can tell, then, the district court’s order
relied on a faulty factual premise that caused the court to
erroneously
decision.
discount
the
prejudice
to
Jones
in
reaching
its
See Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1195-96
(9th Cir. 2009) (holding that, in resolving a motion under Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
prejudice
60(b)(1),
to
the
a
district
movant
when
court
the
should
consider
the
arose
from
court’s
order
dismissal
noncompliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)).
We
therefore
find
that
the
district
denying Jones’ motion was an abuse of its discretion.
We vacate
the district court’s order and remand for fresh consideration of
the matter.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?