Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03335/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03335-0/pdf.json

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

---

f FI LED 

Uoited States Coon of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNI-TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUN 2 6 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

ROLLY 0. KINNELL, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

v. 

STEVE DAVIES, Director; JOHN W. 

RUTLEDGE; ROBERT WATSON; SERGEANT 

REYES; SERGEANT BELAR; FIRST 

HEARING OFFICER MEYERS and 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HOPKINS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-3335 

(D.C. No. 87-3365-S) 

(D. Kansas) 

Before McKAY, MOORE and BRORBY, 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. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Rolly 0. Kinnell, an inmate in the Kansas State Penitentiary, 

filed a complaint, ~ se, against certain prison officials, 

alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. After the district court dismissed his complaint and denied 

* 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: 89-3335 Document: 010110037426 Date Filed: 06/26/1990 Page: 1 
his three subsequent motions for relief from judgment, . Mr. Kinnell 

filed his notice of appeal from the order dismissing his 

complaint. Because Mr. Kinnell did not timely file his notice of 

appeal, we have jurisdiction to review only the district court's 

denial of his third motion for relief from judgment. We affirm. 

After Mr. Kinnell filed his complaint alleging violations of 

his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to 

the United States Constitution, the district court ordered the 

defendants to file with their answer a report on Mr. Kinnell's 

allegations pursuant to our holding in Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 

317 (10th Cir. 1978). The defendants filed the report and moved 

for dismissal. Mr. Kinnell then moved for summary judgment. The 

district court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the 

complaint was frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and denied Mr. 

Kinnell's motion for summary judgment. On August 31, 1988, the 

district court entered its judgment. 

Mr. Kinnell then filed three motions for relief from judgment. These motions challenged the correctness of the district 

court's dismissal of the complaint and alleged that the judgment 

was void under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). The district court 

denied the motions, the third on November 17, 1989. Mr. Kinnell 

filed his notice of appeal on November 30, 1989, raising on appeal 

the district court's dismissal of his complaint and its denial of 

his third motion for relief from judgment. 

An appellant in a civil action must file a notice of appeal 

within thirty days of entry of the judgment or order from which 

the appeal is taken. Fed. R. Civ. App. P. 4(a)(l). Timely filing 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3335 Document: 010110037426 Date Filed: 06/26/1990 Page: 2 
. of the notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional even 

in pro se actions where we liberally construe the pleadings. 

Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 

(1978); Skagerberg v. State of Okla., 797 F.2d 881, 883 (10th Cir. 

1986). See also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). 

Since Mr. Kinnell did not file his notice of appeal within thirty 

days after the entry of judgment dismissing his complaint and 

denying his motion for summary judgment, we lack jurisdiction to 

review his appeal from those rulings. We do, however, have 

jurisdiction to review the denial of his third motion for relief 

from judgment. 

Rule 60(b)(4) provides for relief from a final judgment or 

order that is void. A judgment is not void because it is erroneous. EEOC v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 611 F.2d 795, 800 (10th Cir. 

1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952 (1980). A court renders a void 

judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) if it lacks jurisdiction over the 

subject matter or over the parties, or if it acts in a manner 

inconsistent with due process of law. V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, 

Inc., 597 F.2d 220, 224-25 (10th Cir. 1979); 11 C. Wright & A. 

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2862, at 198-200 (1973}. 

Since relief from a void judgment is not discretionary, we conduct 

a de novo review of the district court's denial of a motion for 

relief under Rule 60(b)(4). King Fisher Marine Serv., Inc. v. 

21st Phoenix Corp., 893 F.2d 1155, 1158 (10th Cir.}, cert. denied, 

U.S. , 58 USLW 3770 (1990). Our review, however, is limited 

to the order denying relief and does not extend to the underlying 

judgment. V.T.A., 597 F.2d at 224. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3335 Document: 010110037426 Date Filed: 06/26/1990 Page: 3 
• Ir ... 

Mr. Kinnell . first contends that the district court did not 

have jurisdiction to dismiss his complaint. This contention is 

meritless. Since Mr. Kinnell's complaint is based on 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. The 

record indicates, moreover, that the court properly exercised 

jurisdiction over the parties. Mr. Kinnell also contends that the 

district judge was biased and, therefore, acted in a manner 

inconsistent with due process of law. These allegations are 

wholly unsubstantiated. Finally, Mr. Kinnell attacks the merits 

of the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment. 

Our review, however, does not extend to the underlying judgment, 

and even if it did, an error of law is insufficient to support a 

finding of voidness. Since we find no error in the district 

court's denial of Mr. Kinnell's motion for relief under Rule 

60(b)(4), we AFFIRM. 

The district court denied Mr. Kinnell leave to file in forma 

pauperis on appeal. Mr. Kinnell timely filed a motion with this 

court to proceed in forma pauperis. We grant his motion. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

4 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3335 Document: 010110037426 Date Filed: 06/26/1990 Page: 4