Nixon v. Brooks ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                                                            F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                 DEC 27 2000
    TENTH CIRCUIT             PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    JIMMY G. NIXON, SR.,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    and
    KEITH HONAKER,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden; JANET
    RENO, Attorney General of the United
    States; KATHLEEN
    HAWK-SAWYER, Director Federal
    Bureau of Prisons; WILLIAM E.
    CAMPBELL, President, Phillip Morris
    Co.; EDWARD A. HORRINGTON,
    Jr., Chairman, Ligget Group, Inc.;
    No. 00-1069
    JAMES W. JOHNSON, Chairman, R.J.
    (D.C. No. 99-Z-2039)
    Reynolds Tobacco Company;
    (Colorado)
    DONALD S. JOHNSON, President,
    American Tobacco Company;
    STEPHEN RAFFLE, Tobacco
    Institute; TILFORD F. RIEHL, Vice
    President, Brown and Williamson
    Tobacco Corporation; THOMAS E.
    SANDEFUR, Jr., Brown and
    Williamson Tobacco Corporation;
    ANDY SCHINDLER, Head of
    Manufacturing, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
    Company; ALEXANDER W.
    SPEARS, III, Vice Chairman,
    Lorillard Tobacco Company; JOSEPH
    TADDEAO, President U.S. Tobacco
    Co.; ANDREW H. TISCH, Chairman,
    Lorillard Tobacco Company;
    CHARLES O. WHITLEY, Senior
    Consultant, Tobacco Institute;
    FEDERAL DRUGS AND
    ADMINISTRATION, Does 1 to 1000,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, EBEL, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
    Jimmy G. Nixon, a federal prisoner, brought this Bivens action against
    federal prison officials and others alleging constitutional violations arising from
    his exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke while he was incarcerated at the
    Federal Correctional Institution in Littleton, Colorado. The district court
    dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to timely pay the required
    *
    After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
    determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
    determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.
    34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and
    judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
    res judicata, or 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.
    -2-
    partial filing fee. Mr. Nixon appeals and we affirm.
    Mr. Nixon was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed to
    either pay the partial fee or show why he could not do so within thirty days.
    When he missed this deadline his action was dismissed. Three weeks later, he
    filed a motion for reconsideration contending he had not received the court’s in
    forma pauperis order and providing material allegedly establishing his inability to
    make partial payment. The district court construed the motion as one for relief
    from the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and denied it.
    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. 
    Id. When, as
    here, it is filed more than ten days
    after entry of judgment, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion. 
    Id. 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. 
    Id. Relief under
    Rule 60(b) is discretionary
    and is warranted only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. Cashner v.
    Freedom Stores, Inc., 
    98 F.3d 572
    , 576 (10th Cir. 1996).
    In denying reconsideration, the district court pointed out that the order
    -3-
    granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis, like the order of dismissal, was
    mailed to Mr. Nixon at the address he provided. The court determined that the
    circumstances did not meet the standard for Rule 60(b) relief and we are not
    persuaded the court abused its discretion in so doing.
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    Stephanie K. Seymour
    Chief Judge
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-1069

Filed Date: 12/27/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021