Clayton v. Brennan et al

Filing 149

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Rosalind A. Clayton's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 146 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/19/2021. (CBL)

Case: 4:18-cv-01039-JAR Doc. #: 149 Filed: 01/19/21 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #: 4191

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ROSALIND A. CLAYTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOUIS DEJOY,
Postmaster General
United States Postal Service, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:18-CV-01039-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This closed matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Rosalind A. Clayton’s Motion to Vacate.
(Doc. 146). For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be denied.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Rosalind A. Clayton is an African American woman who worked as a Mail

Processing Clerk in the United States Postal Service’s (“USPS”) Processing and Distribution
Center in St. Louis, Missouri. (Doc. 77 at ¶¶ 1-2). On June 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed suit alleging
various forms of discrimination against Defendants USPS and American Postal Workers Union
(“APWU”). (Doc. 1). A large portion of Plaintiff’s allegations were dismissed as either nonexhausted (USPS claims) or time barred (APWU claims). (Doc. 97). Subsequently, this Court
granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all remaining claims. (Docs. 139-40). On
December 22, 2020, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, which was directed
toward nine different Orders and filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). (Doc. 145). On December

Case: 4:18-cv-01039-JAR Doc. #: 149 Filed: 01/19/21 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #: 4192

24, 2020, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Vacate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). (Doc. 146). 1
Plaintiff seeks to vacate this Court’s Memorandum and Order granting USPS’ Partial Motion to
Dismiss. (Doc. 97).

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), a court may relieve a party from a void judgment. “A

judgment is void if the rendering court lacked jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with
due process.” Baldwin v. Credit Based Asset Servicing & Securitization, 516 F.3d 734, 737 (8th
Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). A judgment is rendered void for lack of jurisdiction “only when
there is a plain usurpation of power, when a court wrongfully extends its jurisdiction beyond the
scope of its authority.” United States v. Three Hundred Fifty-Three Thousand Six Hundred
Dollars, in U.S. Currency, 463 F.3d 812, 813 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Kansas City Southern Ry.
Co. v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp., 624 F.2d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 1980) (en banc)). While relief from
judgment is an “extraordinary remedy,” relief from a void judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) is
not discretionary. Hunter v. Underwood, 362 F.3d 468, 475 (8th Cir. 2004).

III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that this Court erred by treating her failure to exhaust her administrative

remedies as a jurisdictional, rather than procedural, defect. (Doc. 146 at 2-7). In ruling on USPS’
Partial Motion to Dismiss, this Court held that Plaintiff had not exhausted her administrative
remedies as to all allegations of discrimination except those identified in Plaintiff’s March 8, 2017

1
The instant motion also includes “Plaintiff Objections to Memorandum and Order Doc. No. 145” (Doc. 146-1)
challenging this Court’s Memorandum and Order (Doc. 145) denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. To the
extent Plaintiff seeks further reconsideration of this Court’s previous Orders, the request is denied. Plaintiff offers no
new arguments or evidence but instead misguidedly and repeatedly asserts that the judgment against her is void and
procured by fraud.

Case: 4:18-cv-01039-JAR Doc. #: 149 Filed: 01/19/21 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #: 4193

EEO complaint and addressed in the August 7, 2018 Final Agency Decision. (Doc. 97 at 7-8). The
Supreme Court recently held in Fort Bend Cty., Texas v. Davis that “Title VII’s charge-filing
requirement is not of jurisdictional cast.” 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1850 (2019). Therefore, Plaintiff argues,
this Court “erred when it dismissed [Plaintiff’s] claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” and
this Court was “still required to hear [Plaintiff’s] claims . . . because it would be a procedural
defect.” (Doc. 146 at 2) (emphasis in original).
Beyond the fact that this Court did not solely dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, 2 Plaintiff misinterprets the Supreme Court’s holding in Davis. The Supreme Court’s
decision does not mean that courts must adjudicate Title VII claims even where a plaintiff has
failed to exhaust administrative remedies. As the Supreme Court explained, the charge-filing
requirement is “mandatory without being jurisdictional.” Davis, 139 S. Ct. at 1852. A mandatory
claim-processing rule “must be enforced” if properly raised, though unlike a jurisdictional defect,
it may be waived or forfeited. Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chicago, 138 S Ct. 13, 17
(2017) (citing Manrique v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266, 1271-72 (2017)). USPS timely raised
Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies.
Finally, even if this Court had improperly determined that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s unexhausted claims, this would not render the Court’s judgment void.
As discussed above, judgment is void if the court “wrongfully extends its jurisdiction beyond the
scope of its authority.” Three Hundred Fifty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Dollars, in U.S.
Currency, 463 F.3d at 813 (emphasis added). Plaintiff does not argue that this Court wrongfully
extended its jurisdiction; instead, Plaintiff argues that this Court wrongfully declined jurisdiction.
Such a claim is not cognizable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).

2

The phrase “subject matter jurisdiction” cannot be found in the Order Plaintiff seeks to vacate. USPS’ Partial Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 53) was brought, moreover, pursuant to both Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Case: 4:18-cv-01039-JAR Doc. #: 149 Filed: 01/19/21 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #: 4194

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Rosalind A. Clayton’s Motion to Vacate (Doc.
146) is DENIED.

Dated this 19th day of January, 2021.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE