Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01173/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01173-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RALPH ROGER BERGMAN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

PIL_ij · 

United St@tts Coutr of Appeals 

·rend, Circuit 

JAN 16 1aso 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

V • ) 

) 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) 

COMMERCE; HONORABLE MALCOMB ) 

No. 89-1173 

(D.C. No. 82-A-1665) 

(D. Colo.) 

BALDRIDGE; SECRETARY OF ) 

COMMERCE; JOSEPH C. BROWN, ) 

Personnel Officer; EDGAR A. ) 

HUBIN, Personnel Officer, ) 

Department of Commerce; ) 

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF ) 

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Denver ) 

Region; ROBERT J. DUNN, ) 

Director; GEORGE F. DWYER, ) 

Director; JOSEPH STECK, ) 

Deputy Director; JOHN ) 

THORLAND, Classification ) 

Officer, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1173 Document: 01019960730 Date Filed: 01/16/1990 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Ralph Roger Bergman appeals the order of the district court 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion to correct judgment. 

Bergman contends that the court erred in failing to consider his 

attorney's admonishment by the Colorado Supreme Court and the many 

allegations of fraud, deceit, and other inappropriate conduct on 

the part of the government attorneys representing the government 

defendants. We affirm. 

Bergman initially filed an action before the court of claims 

seeking reclassification relief. The court of claims did not 

reach the merits, finding that it was without jurisdiction over 

reclassification requests. Bergman~ United States, No. 84-78 

(Ct. Cl. 1982). The Federal Circuit affirmed. Bergman~ United 

States, 706 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Bergman then filed for 

relief in district court, alleging violations of the Privacy Act, 

5 u.s.c. § 552(a) & (g), misrepresentation, deceit, and slander 

(as interpreted by the district court), breach of statutory duty 

under the Privacy Act, and intentional infliction of emotional 

distress. The district court determined that Bergman's Privacy 

Act claims were barred by the statute of limitations, that the 

tort claims were barred by the immunity retained by 28 u.s.c. § 

2680(h), that there is no private right of action available under 

the Privacy Act, and that Bergman had failed to allege a state law 

tort of outrage. Bergman v. United States, No. 82-A-1165 (D. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-1173 Document: 01019960730 Date Filed: 01/16/1990 Page: 2 
Colo. 1983). We affirmed, Bergman~ United States, 751 F.2d 314 

(10th Cir. 1984), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari, 474 

U.S. 945 (1985). Bergman then brought the same claims against the 

individuals in their personal capacities. This action was 

dismissed, Bergman v. United States, No. 87-F-1391 (D. Colo. 

1987), and we affirmed the dismissal in Bergman~ United States, 

No. 88-1761 (10th Cir. 1989). Bergman now seeks to reopen the 

district court judgment in the 1983 case. 

We have extensively reviewed Bergman's contentions. We are 

unable to agree that the negligence, if any, of Bergman's attorney 

in his earlier representation rises to a level justifying Rule 60 

relief. We note that mere negligence on the part of one's 

attorney does "not constitute a sufficient showing to warrant the 

extraordinary relief sought [by a Rule 60(b) motion]." Blinder, 

Robinson~ Co.~ SEC, 748 F.2d 1415, 1420 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. 

denied, 471 U.S. 1125 (1985). In this situation, where Bergman's 

claims of fraud, deceit, and other government misconduct have been 

extensively reviewed and rejected by both the district courts and 

the Court of Appeals, we find that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen under Rule 60(b). 

Finally, we note that Bergman is not cut off from all 

possibilities of redress from the government. He may still 

contact legislative or executive representatives in an effort to 

seek relief. These channels may still be open; it is his PrivDcy 

Act and tort challenges which are barred by the statute of 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-1173 Document: 01019960730 Date Filed: 01/16/1990 Page: 3 
limitations, see Bergman v. United States, 751 F.2d 314 (10th Cir. 

1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 945 (1985). 

The order of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

4 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1173 Document: 01019960730 Date Filed: 01/16/1990 Page: 4