In the case of John Robert Demos, Jr. v. Michael C. Storrie et al., 1992, Demos filed a lawsuit against several police officers and the city of San Diego for alleged violations of his civil rights under federal law (42 U.S.C §1983). He claimed that he was falsely arrested and imprisoned after being mistaken for another person with an outstanding warrant due to negligence on part of the police department in verifying his identity before making an arrest. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants based on qualified immunity - a legal doctrine protecting government officials from lawsuits unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would know about. Demos appealed this decision but both the Ninth Circuit Court and Supreme Court denied hearing his appeal without providing any written opinion explaining their reasons. This left standing lower court's ruling that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they had probable cause to believe Demos was indeed the suspect wanted by authorities at time of arrest even if it later turned out they were wrong.

The dissenting opinion in the case of John Robert Demos, Jr. v. Michael C. Storrie et al., argued that the majority's decision to dismiss Demos' petition for certiorari was incorrect and premature. The dissent emphasized that the lower court had erred by not providing a clear rationale for its decision to deny relief under Rule 60(b)(6) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows courts to relieve a party from final judgment for any reason justifying relief from operation thereof. It also highlighted concerns about whether or not there were exceptional circumstances warranting such denial given that it involved an issue where federal law is unsettled - specifically regarding how much time should pass before a litigant can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(6). By dismissing this case without addressing these issues, they believed the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to provide guidance on important questions related with post-judgment relief.