MARIN v. DOD, et al

Filing 186

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 185 plaintiff's motion to reopen this case and denying 185 plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on March 29, 2017. (MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
MELVIN MARIN,

Civil Action No. 95-2175 (PLF)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The matters before the Court are plaintiff Melvin Marin’s Motion to Reopen this
case and his Motion for Relief from Judgment (“Mot.”) [Dkt. 185]. Mr. Marin originally
brought this action against several defendants including, among others, the Department of
Defense, the Department of Education, the Department of the Army, and the Executive Office of
the President. See Opinion (Mar. 31, 1998) at 2 [Dkt. 134]. “The gravamen of Mr. Marin’s
nine-count amended complaint against these defendants appear[ed] to involve the release of
information pertaining to his military service and the correction of military records.” Id. at 4.
On March 31, 1998, this Court dismissed Mr. Marin’s FOIA and Privacy Act claims without
prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Order (Mar. 31, 1998) at 1
[Dkt. 135]; see also Opinion at 7-8, 15. 1 Mr. Marin claims that the defendants have failed to
respond to his subsequent requests, but he has offered no evidence to support his claim. He asks

1

Other claims, not relevant here, were dismissed with prejudice, see Opinion at
10-11, 13-15, and the Privacy Act claim itself was later dismissed with prejudice, see Opinion
(Oct. 23, 1998) at 5 [Dkt. 170].

this Court to reopen this case and seeks relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Mot. at 2.
A party must file a Rule 60(b) motion within a reasonable time. FED. R. CIV. P.
60(c)(1). “The definition of a ‘reasonable time’ varies with the circumstances, and a court must
balance the interests of justice and the sanctity of final judgments in determining whether a delay
is ‘reasonable.’” Carvajal v. DEA, et al., 286 F.R.D. 23, 26 (D.D.C. 2012). “However, a delay
of several years has been found permissible [only] when [the] plaintiff bore no fault for the delay
and filed the motion as soon as feasible.” Id. at 27. Mr. Marin filed this motion 19 years after
the entry of the judgment, and he has presented no compelling reasons for such a delay. The
Court therefore will deny his motion to reopen this case and his motion for relief from judgment.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case [Dkt. 185] is DENIED;
and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment [Dkt. 185]
is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

/s/_________________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: March 29, 2017

2