By: Derek Hawkins//August 16, 2017//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Keith E. Chambers v. United States of America
Case No: 16-2977
Officials: POSNER, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Abuse of Discretion
On appeal Chambers argues that Judge Myerscough was wrong to think that she lacked authority to grant his Rule 60(b) motion. He says the judge could have granted relief based on the new and unforeseeable circumstances beyond his control. The government counters that we have already considered—and rejected—the issue of Noll’s abandonment of Chambers in denying his motion to recall the mandate and his § 2244(b) application.
The government is correct. Judge Myerscough did not abuse her discretion in declining to reach the merits of the Rule 60(b) motion. The judge properly recognized that although she has discretion to grant relief under Rule 60(b) in many circumstances, she has no authority to order this court to reopen Chambers’s appeal. Chambers contends that the judge could have simply vacated the judgment, thereby resetting the clock and providing him a fresh appeal, following the example in Williams v. Hatcher, 890 F.2d 993, 995–96 (7th Cir. 1989). But Williams is different because it dealt with an error committed in the district court—the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Indeed, all of the cases Chambers cites involved errors either committed or properly remedied in the district court. See Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912, 927 (2012) (failure to appeal); Ramirez, 799 F.3d at 849 (same); LSLJ P’ship v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 920 F.2d 476, 478 (7th Cir. 1990) (subsequent change in law). He has not pointed to any case giving the district court authority to remedy complications occurring in the appellate court, nor have we found one.
Affirmed