Stacy Terry, proceeding pro se, sued multiple defendants including Travelers Insurance and The Phoenix Insurance Company for alleged violations of numerous federal and state statutes. The litigation involved a complex history of amended complaints and dismissals. Terry initially sued Travelers, but The Phoenix Insurance Company clarified that it was the actual insurer and that Travelers was not a legal entity. Terry subsequently amended her complaint to remove Phoenix and keep Travelers as a defendant. The district court dismissed her second amended complaint as a shotgun pleading and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After Terry appealed and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that dismissal, she filed a Rule 60(b)(4) motion claiming the judgment was void because the district court relied on filings from Phoenix, a non-party, and allowed conflicted counsel to participate. When the district court denied that motion, Terry filed a Rule 59(e) motion to alter the decision, which was also denied before she appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
The court reviewed the denial of the Rule 60(b)(4) motion de novo, noting that a judgment is void only if the court lacked subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or if a due process violation deprived a party of notice or an opportunity to be heard. The court rejected Terry's argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction because it accepted filings from Phoenix, a non-party. The court reasoned that accepting a non-party's motion to dismiss does not alter the court's subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, nor does it end personal jurisdiction over the parties who were properly served. Furthermore, Terry was served with Phoenix's filings and had the opportunity to respond, so her due process rights were not violated. Regarding the claim of a conflicted attorney, the court held that Terry forfeited this issue because she did not raise it in her original Rule 60(b)(4) motion. On the Rule 59(e) motion, the court applied an abuse of discretion standard, explaining that such motions are reserved for newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law. The court found that Terry's motion merely sought to relitigate arguments regarding Phoenix's filings that had already been addressed in her Rule 60(b)(4) motion, without identifying any new evidence or manifest errors.
The district court's dismissal of Terry's case with prejudice remains in full force, effectively ending her ability to litigate these claims on the grounds she raised. The decision reinforces the strict standards for vacating judgments under Rule 60(b)(4), clarifying that procedural irregularities involving non-parties or unraised attorney conflicts do not automatically render a judgment void. It also serves as a reminder that Rule 59(e) motions are not a vehicle for re-arguing points already decided.