Redistricting as required after a census is not a special circumstance justifying reopening a judgment under Rule 60(b).
“The plaintiff’s motion argues that the recent 2010 census has resulted in malapportionment of Wisconsin’s legislative districts. Putting to the side the issue of whether the plaintiff’s motion has any substantive validity, relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is an ‘extraordinary remedy available only in exceptional circumstances.’ Smith v. Widman Trucking & Excavating, 627 F.2d 792, 796 (7 Cir. 1980). The occurrence of a constitutionally mandated, decennial event is hardly a ‘special circumstance’ warranting reopening the court’s earlier judgment. An opposite ruling would only serve to eviscerate the principle of the need for finality with regard to judgments of this, or any court. Spika v. Lombard, 763 F.2d 282 (7 Cir. 1985).”
01-C0121 Baumgart v. Wendelberger