United States District Court, D. Delaware
RICHARD DOE, individually and as guardian for A.B., C.D., and E.F., A.B., a minor child, CD., a minor child, and E.F., a minor child, Plaintiffs,
STA TE OF DELA WARE, DEPARTMENT: OF SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH & THEIR FAMILIES, DIVISION: OF FAMILY SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
Steven Chang, Hockessin, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Rosamaria Tassone-DiNardo, First Assistant City Solicitor,
City of Wilmington Law Department, Wilmington, Delaware.
Attorney for Defendants The City of Wilmington; The City of
Wilmington Police Department; and Mary Quinn.
P. Connell, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice,
State of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for
Defendants State of Delaware, Department of Services for
Children, Youth & Their Families, Division of Family
Services; Sarah Marlowe; and Bahu Gilliam.
H. Kaplan, Esquire, and Art C. Aranilla, II, Esquire,
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington,
Delaware. Attorneys for Defendant Children's Advocacy
Center of Delaware.
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
September 27, 2016, the Court entered granted Defendants'
motions to dismiss and closed the case. (D.I. 38, 39) Before
the Court is Plaintiff Weih Steven Chang's motion for
relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1),
(2), and (3), opposed by Defendants City of Wilmington, City
of Wilmington Police Department, and Mary Quinn ("City
Defendants") and Children's Advocacy Center of
Delaware ("CDCD") who joined City Defendants
opposition. (D.I. 40) For the reasons discussed below, the
Court will deny the motion.
commenced this action on October 23, 2015. (D.I. 2) At the
time, he was represented by counsel. Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint on February 22, 2016. (D.I. 15) The Amended
Complaint contains seven counts and alleges defamation,
negligence, malicious prosecution, wrongful use of civil
proceedings, deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, civil conspiracy to commit malicious
prosecution, and breach of contract. (Id.) On
September 27, 2016, the Court granted Defendants' motions
to dismiss and the case was closed. (D.I. 38, 39) On October
27, 2016, Chang, now proceeding pro se, filed the
instant motion for relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1),
(2), and (3). (D.I. 40) He filed a notice of appeal the same
day. (D.I. 42) The United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit stayed the appeal pending a decision on
Chang's motion for relief. See Chang v. Delaware
Dep't Children & Youth, No. 16-3981 at Nov. 22,
2016 Order (3d Cir.).
60(b) provides that a party may file a motion for relief from
a final judgment for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence, that with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously
called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other
misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5)
the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it
is based on an earlier judgment that has been reserved or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Civ. P. 60(b). A motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court guided
by accepted legal principles applied in light of all relevant
circumstances. SeePierce Assoc, Inc. v. Nemours
Found.,865 F.2d 530, 548 (3d Cir. 1988). A motion filed
under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time and,
for motions under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (3), must be filed