Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06085/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06085-0/pdf.json

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

---

, FI LED 

Uflited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirruit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUL 12 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

FERNANDO BUSTILLO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-6085 

) (D.C. No. 88-216-T) 

T.C. MARTIN; J.E. CROSLEY; 

S.M. CALHOUN; MICHAEL QUINLAN; J.P. 

WILLIAMS; PAUL CHAPMAN; and 

MARK ROBERTS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and BALDOCK, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff commenced this action against federal prison 

employees pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of 

* 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: 89-6085 Document: 010110038315 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 1 
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff 

alleged two claims for relief: 1) defendants denied him medical 

treatment in violation of the fifth and eighth amendments; and 2) 

the institutional disciplinary committee's decision finding 

plaintiff guilty of assault violated the fifth amendment's due 

process clause because the decision was not based upon sufficient 

evidence. 

On September 26, 1988, the district court entered an order 

granting defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that plaintiff 

had f ailed to respond to the motions as directed by the court. In 

tha t same order, the district court addressed the merits of 

pla i nt iff's claims, finding/concluding that they were frivolous 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Plaintiff did not file a notice of 

appeal from the district court's order of September 26, 1988, 

wi thin a period of sixty days as required by Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(l). Plaintiff did, however, file a motion for 

reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) on February 21, 

19 89, some six months or 180 days after the order of dismissal was 

enter ed. The plaintiff asserted in his motion for reconsideration 

t hat he had been unable to respond to the defendants' motions to 

dismiss due to the actions of prison officials. The district 

court denied the motion for reconsideration. The plaintiff 

appeals. 

Although plaintiff, on appeal, addresses the merits of his 

d i smissed Bivens claims, this court has jurisdiction to review 

o nly the denial of plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. 

Browder v. Director, Illinois Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6085 Document: 010110038315 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 2 
263 n.7 (1978)(an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion 

for reconsideration does not bring up the underlying judgment for 

review). Plaintiff did not contend that the district court's 

denial of his Bivens claims was erroneous. The district court, in 

denyi ng t he motion for reconsideration, ruled that the order of 

d ismissa l was not based on plaintiff's failure to respond to the 

motions to dismiss. We hold that the district court did not err 

in denying plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff's pending 

motion to compel is DENIED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6085 Document: 010110038315 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 3