Lyons v. New Mexico Department of Corrections , 12 F. App'x 772 ( 2001 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 27 2001
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOHN LYONS,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 00-2448
v. (D. New Mexico)
NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF (D.C. No. CIV-00-743 BB/LCS)
CORRECTIONS; ROB PERRY,
Secretary of Corrections; DON
CAVINESS, Classification Director;
JEFF SENA, Classification Bureau
Chief; INMATES DISCIPLINARY
COMMITTEE, Western New Mexico
Correctional Facility,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY , BRISCOE , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for decision on the briefs without oral
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case is therefore submitted without
oral argument.
John Lyons, a state prisoner in New Mexico proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of his “Motion to Reconsider Order of Court,” brought
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We affirm.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a motion to
reconsider and we construe such a motion in one of two ways. See Hawkins v.
Evans , 64 F.3d 543, 546 (10th Cir. 1995). If the motion is filed within ten days
of the district court’s entry of judgment, it is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion to
alter or amend the judgment. See id. When, as here, it is filed more than ten days
after entry of judgment, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from
judgment. See id.Rule 60(b) provides, in relevant part: “On motion and upon such terms as
are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation
of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). An appeal from the denial of a Rule
60(b) motion does not itself preserve for appellate review the merits of the
underlying judgment and raises for review only the district court’s denial of the
motion to reconsider. See Hawkins , 63 F.3d at 546. “We review the denial of a
-2-
motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) only to determine whether the
district court abused its discretion.” White v. American Airlines, Inc. , 915 F.2d
1414, 1425 (10th Cir. 1990).
“Relief under Rule 60(b) is extraordinary and may only be granted in
exceptional circumstances.” Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking
Co. , 909 F.2d 1437, 1440 (10th Cir. 1990).
Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening
change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable,
and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.
Servants of the Paraclete v. John Does, I-XVI , 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.
2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In denying reconsideration, the district court examined Mr. Lyons’s
argument that it overlooked two of three claims in its dismissal order. The
district court determined that the motion to reconsider presented no manifest
errors of law and no exceptional circumstances, and we agree. We AFFIRM the
district court’s order.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-3-