Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30317/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30317-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30317

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL HAMPTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY; 

UNKNOWN BENJAMAN, Assistant Warden, Angola State Prison; JAMES 

LEBLANC, Secretary of D.O.C.; MARY STRICKLAND; SHARON RANATZA, 

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:13-CV-15

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Hampton, Louisiana prisoner # 334976, filed a civil rights 

complaint in the district court complaining, among other things, of exposure to 

environmental tobacco smoke. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The magistrate 

judge concluded that the motion should be granted. After Hampton failed to 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30317 Document: 00513615366 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2016
No. 15-30317

2

file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in 

accordance with the district court’s General Order 2012-01, the district court 

entered an order and judgment dismissing the complaint. More than one year 

later, Hampton filed motions to stay the judgment and for leave to file 

objections to the report and recommendation. The district court construed the 

motions as requesting relief under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b), and it denied them as 

untimely.

Under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6), a court may relieve a party from a final 

judgment for “any . . . reason that justifies relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6). 

Relief will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. Hess v. Cockrell, 

281 F.3d 212, 216 (5th Cir. 2002). Such a motion must be made “‘within a 

reasonable time,’ unless good cause can be shown for delay.” In re Osborne, 

379 F.3d 277, 283 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1)). Our review 

is for an abuse of discretion. Hess, 281 F.3d at 215.

Hampton asserts that he was unable to comply with the electronic filing 

requirements because prison officials retaliated against him because of his 

litigiousness. He complains that his objections to the magistrate judge’s report 

and recommendation were properly filed by mail under the rules of civil 

procedure and that the district court’s electronic filing requirements are not 

consistent with those rules. The district court’s failure to accept his document 

for filing, he contends, violated his rights to due process and equal protection. 

He complains also of the denial of his right to a jury trial.

The claim of retaliation has been raised for the first time on appeal and 

has not been considered. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 

342 (5th Cir. 1999). None of Hampton’s arguments go to the question whether 

the district court abused its discretion in determining that the Rule 60(b) 

motions were untimely. See Osborne, 379 F.3d at 283; Hess, 281 F.3d at 215. 

 Case: 15-30317 Document: 00513615366 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2016
No. 15-30317

3

The district court’s orders denying the Rule 60(b) motions are AFFIRMED. 

Hampton’s motion for leave to file motion for en banc hearing out of time is 

DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.

 Case: 15-30317 Document: 00513615366 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/29/2016