O’Neal v. Reilly

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff's Rule 15 motion to reinstate his section 1983 action against defendants-police officials who had arrested plaintiff on criminal charges to which plaintiff had been convicted by time plaintiff had originally filed his section 1983 claim. Plaintiff's section 1983 claim could have been dismissed based on Heck bar due to fact that his underlying conviction had not been reversed or expunged, but Dist. Ct. dismissed with prejudice plaintiff's section 1983 action due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute his case. However, after plaintiff's conviction had been overturned, plaintiff filed instant motion to reinstate his section 1983 action, but Dist. Ct properly denied plaintiff's motion on ground that Rule 15 did not allow plaintiff to file amended complaint in instant terminated case. Moreover, although Rule 60(b) provided plaintiff with potential avenue to seek relief from terminated case, plaintiff waived any Rule 60(b) argument because he failed to raise it until he filed his reply brief. Also, it was unlikely that plaintiff could have prevailed if he had filed timely Rule 60(b)(6) motion, where plaintiff filed instant motion to reinstate more than one year after dismissal of his case.