Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04008/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04008-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

i • .. 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Stat.el C-Oμrt o/- Appeals Tenth C1rcu,t 

TENTH CIRCUIT SEP O 4 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

KENNETH W. McHENRY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. 

AETNA LIFE AND CAUSALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 91-4008 

(D. Utah, Civ. No. 88-771J) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, 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. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant Kenneth McHenry appeals the district court's denial 

of his Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider its prior ruling on 

plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. We grant appellant's in 

forma pauperis petition, but nevertheless affirm the district 

court's denial of the 60(b) motion. 

* 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: 91-4008 Document: 010110084261 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 1 
BACKGROUND 

This case arises from McHenry's claim that his defense in a 

medical malpractice action was not properly conducted by counsel 

provided by Aetna, his malpractice insurer. The district court 

for the District of Utah entered summary judgment in favor of 

Aetna on the grounds that McHenry's claims were barred by the 

relevant statute of limitations. McHenry appealed to the Tenth 

Circuit, arguing that the district court applied the wrong statute 

of limitations and wrongly excluded an affidavit submitted by him 

in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. We affirmed the 

district court on appeal. Following our affirmance, McHenry filed 

a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

requesting that the district court reconsider its prior ruling. 

The district court denied the motion, and McHenry now appeals. 

ANALYSIS 

In reviewing a district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) 

motion, an appellate court is limited to considering whether the 

district court abused its discretion. Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 

1165, 1168 (10th Cir. 1990) (district court is "vested with a 

great deal of discretion in its decision to grant or deny a Rule 

60(b) motion"). Absent such an abuse of discretion, the district 

court's determination should not be disturbed. Adams v. Merrill 

Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, 888 F.2d 696, 702 (10th Cir. 1989). 

We find no abuse of discretion here. 

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides 

for relief from a prior judgment or order in the event of 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4008 Document: 010110084261 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 2 
"(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 

have been discovered in time ... ; (3) fraud •.. , 

misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; ••• 

or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of 

the judgment." McHenry asserts that the district court made 

mistakes of law in determining the appropriate statute of 

limitations and in excluding McHenry's affidavit in opposition to 

defendant's motion for summary judgment. In the case at hand, 

McHenry merely reasserts issues and arguments which were rejected 

by the district court and court of appeals. In effect, he has 

attempted to use Rule 60(b) as yet another level of appellate 

review. This will not do. Because McHenry has alleged no 

extraordinary circumstances which would alter our earlier 

consideration of these issues, we stand by our prior order and 

judgment. 

In addition to the alleged mistakes of law, McHenry also 

alleges fraud on the part of Aetna during the summary judgment 

hearing. Such an allegation necessarily implicates Rule 60(b)(3). 

However, McHenry concedes that the alleged misrepresentations were 

corrected by the time the case reached the Tenth Circuit on 

appeal. Since the Tenth Circuit nevertheless affirmed the 

district court's granting of summary judgment, we think it is 

clear that the allegations of fraud did not "present matter that 

is material and of such importance that it would likely alter the 

outcome •. II Aldrich Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 

_ F.2d _, 1991 WL 124737 at 8 (10th Cir. July 12, 1991). 

Moreover, we note that "[e]ven where misrepresentations are made 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-4008 Document: 010110084261 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 3 
• 

during a litigation, it is not an abuse of discretion to deny 

relief where the losing party had access to accurate information." 

7 J. Moore & J. Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice 1 60.24[5] (2d Ed. 

Supp. 1987-88). Since appellant presumably had access to accurate 

information at all times--including the summary judgment hearing--

we cannot say that it was an abuse of discretion for the district 

court to deny appellant's Rule 60(b) motion. 

CONCLUSION 

Since the appellant has not demonstrated any unusual or 

extraordinary circumstances that would entitle him to relief under 

60(b), we cannot say that the district court abused its 

discretion. We therefore AFFIRM the district court in denying the 

60(b) motion. 

Entered for the Court: 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-4008 Document: 010110084261 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 4