Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02054/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02054-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 18, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

FRANK MUNIZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 07-2054

v. (D. New Mexico)

BEN CAVAZOS, Correctional

Officer, Central New Mexico

Correctional Facility; NEW

MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; STATE OF NEW

MEXICO; GARY JOHNSON,

Former New Mexico Governor;

ROBERT PERRY, Former New

Mexico Corrections Secretary;

RONALD LYTLE, Warden,

Central New Mexico Correctional

Facility; BRIAN CULP, Associate

Warden, Central New Mexico

Correctional Facility; CARLOS

TOERS-BIJNS, Associate Warden,

Central New Mexico Correctional

Facility; MAJOR WHITE, Central

New Mexico Correctional Facility;

VICTOR VALLEJOS, Lieutenant,

Central New Mexico Correctional

Facility; PITA FINCHER,

Lieutenant, Central New Mexico

Correctional Facility; JERRY

MARTINEZ, Lieutenant, Central

New Mexico Correctional Facility;

LARRY MARTINEZ, Lieutenant,

Central New Mexico Correctional

Facility; CAPTAIN RUPERT,

Central New Mexico Correctional

Facility; CENTRAL NEW

MEXICO RECEIVING AND

DIAGNOSTIC CENTER-RDC,

 (D.C. No. 03-30-MCA/RHS)

Appellate Case: 07-2054 Document: 0101113278 Date Filed: 01/18/2008 Page: 1
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

-2-

unknown named authorized agent;

LOUIS SANCHEZ, Classification

Officer, Central New Mexico

Correctional Facility; Ms.

BEN-COMO, Caseworker, Central

New Mexico; ELMER BUSTOS,

New Mexico Director of Adult

Prisons; NEW MEXICO ADULT

PRISONS, CENTRAL BUREAU

OF CLASSIFICATION - CBC,

Unknown named authorized agents;

JAMES DICKIE, Former New

Mexico State Police Officer, 

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HENRY, Chief Judge, TYMKOVICH and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.**

Frank Muniz, a New Mexico state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the

district court’s decision denying his Motion to File Retarded Appeal. Because

Appellate Case: 07-2054 Document: 0101113278 Date Filed: 01/18/2008 Page: 2
-3-

Mr. Muniz filed his motion outside the period allowed by Rule 4(a)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, we affirm the district court’s decision. 

I. BACKGROUND

In January 2003, Mr. Muniz filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against New

Mexico police officers and prison officials alleging that he had been wrongfully

accused of bringing contraband into the Central New Mexico Correctional

Facility. He also alleged that prison officials wrongfully removed him from the

general prison population, placed him in a disciplinary lockup, and inserted false

information in his disciplinary file. 

Adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court

granted the defendant officials’ motion to dismiss and then denied Mr. Muniz’s

motion to amend the complaint. The court entered judgment for the defendants

on February 11, 2005.

On January 29, 2007, Mr. Muniz filed a “Motion to File Retarded Appeal to

Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and Adopting Magistrate

Judge’s Recommended Disposition.” Mr. Muniz stated that he had not received

the district court’s rulings and entry of judgment. As a possible explanation for

the failure to receive the court documents, Mr. Muniz reported that prisoners in

the facility in which he resided had regularly been placed in lockdowns

“suspending all privileges and overlooking rights.” Rec. doc. 47, at 2. He

Appellate Case: 07-2054 Document: 0101113278 Date Filed: 01/18/2008 Page: 3
-4-

reminded the court that he had filed change of address forms in December 2005

and January 2006, and he argued that these documents demonstrated his good

faith belief that the court had not yet ruled on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

Accordingly, Mr. Muniz asked the court to allow him to file an appeal of the

district court’s rulings.

The district court interpreted Mr. Muniz’s request as a motion to file an

appeal under Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and denied

the motion. Mr. Muniz now appeals that decision.

II. DISCUSSION 

Mr. Muniz’s appeal involves the interpretation Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure. We therefore examine the district court’s decision

de novo. See Garrett v. Fleming, 362 F.3d 692, 695 (10th Cir. 2004). Upon

considering the text of Rule 4(a)(6), we agree with the district court’s denial of

Mr. Muniz’s motion. 

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that, with

certain exceptions not applicable here, “[i]n a civil case . . . the notice of appeal .

. . must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after the judgment or order

appealed from is entered.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Under Rule 4(a)(6),

The district court may reopen the time to file an appeal for

a period of 14 days after the date when its order to reopen

is entered, but only if all the following conditions are

satisfied:

Appellate Case: 07-2054 Document: 0101113278 Date Filed: 01/18/2008 Page: 4
-5-

(A) the court finds that the moving party did not receive

notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the

entry of the judgment or order sought to be appealed

within 21 days after entry;

(B) the motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment

or order is entered or within 7 days after the moving party

receives notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

77(d) of the entry, whichever is earlier; and

(C) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced.

(emphasis added).

Rule 4(a)(6) thus sets a 180-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen the

time to file an appeal, even though a party may not have received actual notice of

a district court ruling until after the 180 days have elapsed. See Clark v. Lavallie,

204 F.3d 1038, 1040 (10th Cir. 2000) (stating that the 180-day limit is “specific

and unequivocal”). We have explained that “[t]he essence of Rule 4(a)(6) is

finality of judgment” and that “[w]hile application of that concept infrequently

may work misfortune, it is an overriding principle which demands enforcement

without distinction between counseled and uncounseled cases.” Id. at 1041. 

“[N]othing within Rule 4(a)(6) indicates it is permissive or that its limitations

may be waived for equitable reasons.” Id. at 1040.

Mr. Muniz’s motion to reopen the time to file an appeal was filed well

beyond the 180-day period. His arguments about his lack of notice of the district

court’s rulings are therefore unavailing. Although, in certain circumstances, a

Appellate Case: 07-2054 Document: 0101113278 Date Filed: 01/18/2008 Page: 5
-6-

prisoner’s failure to receive legal documents may support a First Amendment

claim for denial of access to the courts, such a claim is not before us here. See 

Simkins v. Bruce, 406 F.3d 1239, 1242-43 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting that a plaintiff

prisoner alleging denial of access to the courts based on a failure to receive legal

mail must allege intentional conduct interfering with that mail—but not 

malicious motive—and “actual injury by frustrating, impeding, or hindering his

efforts to pursue a legal claim”) (internal quotation marks and alterations

omitted).

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision denying Mr. Muniz’s 

“Motion to File Retarded Appeal.”

Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry

Chief Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 07-2054 Document: 0101113278 Date Filed: 01/18/2008 Page: 6