Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06023/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06023-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

" 

:E _ it 0 

Unitctl Stat J, ·Q1ut of A~i,cals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MILFORD W. PARKER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

OFFICER ROB STRONG, a Police Officer ) 

of the City of Midwest City, Oklahoma, ) 

in his individual capacity, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

f=EJl 2 7 1 g1 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6023 

(D.C. No. CIV-88-348-A) 

(W. D. Okla. ) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, 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 Milford W. Parker brought an action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against Rob Strong, a Midwest City, Oklahoma, police 

officer. The district court granted Strong's motion for summary 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6023 Document: 010110028916 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 1 
judgment. Parker filed a motion for reconsideration and 

rehearing; Strong responded and Parker replied. The court denied 

the motion shortly thereafter, but neither Parker nor Strong 

received notice of the court's order. Some four and one-half 

months after filing his motion, Parker called the district court 

and was advised of its ruling. Parker promptly filed a motion 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(l), asking the court to vacate 

and reenter the judgment so that he could appeal, his appeal time 

following the denial having expired over two months earlier. The 

district court denied Parker's Rule 60(b) motion; Parker's timely 

appeal followed. 

Parker challenges the district court's ruling as an abuse of 

its discretion and contends the court erred in applying the law 

or, alternatively, in failing to order a hearing on the Rule 60(b) 

motion. Our standard of review of a court's denial of relief 

under Rule 60(b) is abuse of discretion. Pelican Prod. Corp. v. 

Marino, 893 F.2d 1143, 1145-46 (10th Cir. 1990). That is, was the 

court's ruling arbitrary or capricious, the product of 

unreasonableness or prejudice as demonstrated in the record, or 

made without a stated reason? Id. at 1146. 

The basis for the district court's denial of Parker's Rule 

60(b) motion was its finding that the four month delay in 

contacting the court did not constitute due diligence. The record 

indicates that Parker offered no evidence or reason for his delay 

in contacting the court, nor does he do so on appeal. Factual 

determinations underlying the district court's ruling we review 

under a clearly erroneous standard. See Bulloch v. United States, 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6023 Document: 010110028916 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 2 
763 F.2d 1115, 1122-23 (10th Cir. 1985)(McKay, J., dissenting), 

cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1086 (1986). Under these circumstances and 

given our limited standard of review, we cannot say the court's 

finding was clear error. Therefore, the court's denial of 

Parker's Rule 60(b) motion was not an abuse of discretion. 

Parker's remaining contentions must likewise fail. The 

district court applied the four-part test for determining the 

availability of Rule 60(b) relief found in Rodgers v. Watt, 722 

F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1983), which includes the criteria that the 

Rule 60(b) movant demonstrate due diligence. Id. at 460. Parker 

argues that a similar three-part test, lacking the due diligence 

requirement, from Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enters., Inc. v. 

Smithsonian Inst., 500 F.2d 808, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1974) should be 

applied. However, this court, in Wallace v. McManus, 776 F.2d 

915, 917 (10th Cir. 1985), applied the Rodgers four-part test to a 

similar set of facts. Additionally, Rodgers considered and 

rejected the three-part Expeditions test. 722 F.2d at 460. 

Accordingly, the district court's application of the four-part 

test outlined in Wallace was correct, and not an abuse of its 

discretion. 

Finally, Parker complains that the district court erred in 

failing to hold a hearing on his Rule 60(b) motion. The decision 

to grant or order a hearing on a Rule 60(b) motion is within the 

district court's discretion. Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales 

Corp., 873 F.2d 869, 872 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 s. Ct. 504 

(1989). In view of Parker's failure to provide any justifiable 

reason for his delay in contacting the court, we see no abuse of 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6023 Document: 010110028916 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 3 
-

discretion in the court's determination of the Rule 60(b) motion 

without a hearing. Moreover, although it is unclear from the 

record presented to us on appeal, Strong contends that Parker did 

not request oral argument on his Rule 60(b) motion. 

Parker does not contend otherwise. 

In reply, 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6023 Document: 010110028916 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 4