Tyrone J. Peterson v. Hank Wong, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13927
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-00521-ORL-DAB
TYRONE J. PETERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HANK WONG, et al.,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 6, 2016)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Jerome Peterson appeals the denial of his motion for relief from the
judgment against his complaint that Hank Wong and other officers of the Orlando
Case: 14-13927 Date Filed: 01/06/2016 Page: 1 of 2

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Police Department violated his civil rights. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Peterson
argued that he was unfairly denied his right to a jury trial. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Peterson’s motion
for relief from the judgment. “The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh
Amendment to the Constitution . . . is preserved to the parties inviolate,” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 38(a), but that right is waived “unless its demand is properly served and
filed,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(d), within 14 days after the defendants serve their answer,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). Peterson failed to demand a jury trial in his pro se complaint
or his amended complaint. He later agreed to proceed without a jury by appearing
at his bench trial and by failing to object. See Southland Reship, Inc. v. Flegel, 534
F.2d 639, 645 (5th Cir. 1976). Peterson argues that he was misadvised by
appointed counsel that he waived a jury trial by consenting to have his case
decided by a magistrate judge, but Peterson failed to demand a jury trial before the
district court appointed his counsel. Peterson failed to establish that his
circumstances were so extraordinary to entitle him to relief from the judgment,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), or that there was “a justification so compelling that the
[district] court was required to vacate” the judgment against him, Solaroll Shade &
Shutter Corp., Inc. v. Bio-Energy Sys., Inc., 803 F.2d 1130, 1132 (11th Cir. 1986).
We AFFIRM the denial of Peterson’s motion for relief from the judgment.
Case: 14-13927 Date Filed: 01/06/2016 Page: 2 of 2

-- 2 of 2 --