Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01163/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01163-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the United States
Appellee
Department of Labor
Appellee
Empire Terrace, LLC
Appellee
Eric Wilmer Gibson
Appellant
Albert Hein
Appellee
Hudspeth County
Appellee
New Orleans Police Department
Appellee
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Appellee
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

ERIC WILMER GIBSON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

UNITED STATES; DEPARTMENT OF 

LABOR; NEW ORLEANS POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; US CUSTOMS AND 

BORDER PROTECTION; U.S. EQUAL 

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION; EMPIRE TERRACE, 

LLC, 50.05%, RMA385 PART; 

HUDSPETH COUNTY, Case 498205; 

ALBERT HEIN, FBI Personnel Security, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 16-1163 

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-02374-LTB) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HARTZ and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Plaintiff Eric Wilmer Gibson commenced suit in the district court by filing a 

sixty-page complaint against a group of defendants including the United States 

 *

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

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

October 21, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1163 Document: 01019708683 Date Filed: 10/21/2016 Page: 1 
2 

Attorney General, the United States Department of Labor, the United States Custom 

and Border Patrol, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

In an October 27, 2015 order, the magistrate judge determined that the 

complaint was prolix and unintelligible. He ordered Mr. Gibson, within thirty days, 

to file an amended complaint that complied with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure’s requirement to state a short and plain statement of the grounds for 

the court’s jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of his claims showing he is 

entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. The order cautioned Mr. Gibson 

that his failure to comply could result in the dismissal of the action without further 

notice. 

Mr. Gibson’s response to the magistrate judge’s order was to first seek 

permission to file a 150-page complaint, followed by a request to file a 301-page 

complaint. On January 7, 2016, the district court entered an order that neither 

proposed amended complaint met the requirements of Rule 8, and dismissed the case 

for failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s order. A separate judgment 

dismissing the case also entered on January 7. 

On February 8, 2016, Mr. Gibson filed a motion to suspend the district court’s 

order. The court treated the motion as filed under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, and denied it on February 11, 2016. Mr. Gibson filed a second 

motion for relief from judgment on March 10, 2016. The court reviewed the motion 

under Rule 60(b), and denied it on March 14, 2016. 

Appellate Case: 16-1163 Document: 01019708683 Date Filed: 10/21/2016 Page: 2 
3 

Mr. Gibson filed three motions on April 15, 2016: (1) to grant Rule 60 relief; 

(2) to enforce the second amended complaint; and (3) to recuse the district court 

judge. In an order dated April 18, 2016, the court denied the motions. 

On May 6, 2016, Mr. Gibson filed several notices of appeal. But his appeal is 

timely only as to the district court’s March 14, 2016 and April 18, 2016 orders.1

 

In Mr. Gibson’s appeal brief, he argues that the district court should not have 

dismissed his complaint for failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s order to file 

a complaint that complied with Rule 8: “[t]he District Court failed to properly apply 

all aspects of Rule 8, FRCP to Plaintiff’s December 24, 2015 Amended Complaint 

 1

 Because Mr. Gibson’s motion to suspend the district court’s order (treated as 

a Rule 60(b) motion) was filed more than twenty-eight days after judgment entered 

on January 7, 2016, any appeal from that underlying order was due within sixty days, 

or March 7, 2016, at the latest. And any appeal from the court’s February 11, 2016 

order denying the motion for reconsideration, was due within sixty days, or April 12, 

2016 at the latest. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), (4)(A)(vi); Ysais v. Richardson, 

603 F.3d 1175, 1178-79 (10th Cir. 2010). 

Mr. Gibson’s second motion for reconsideration, filed on March 10, 2016, and 

which questioned the correctness of the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, likewise did 

not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal from the underlying final judgment. 

See Yasis, 603 F.3d at 1178-79. However, any appeal from the denial of the second 

motion was due no later than sixty days from the denial of the motion on March 14, 

2016, or May 13, 2016. Therefore, Mr. Gibson’s notice of appeal, filed on May 6, 

2016, was timely as to the denial of the second motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(B). 

Mr. Gibson’s third group of motions, filed on April 15, 2016, likewise did not 

extend the time for filing a notice of appeal from the underlying judgment, see Ysais, 

603 F.3d at 1178-79; however, Mr. Gibson’s notices of appeal were timely as to the 

denial of his third set of motions, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). 

Appellate Case: 16-1163 Document: 01019708683 Date Filed: 10/21/2016 Page: 3 
4 

documents filed, and to all subsequent Motions filed in this matter.” Aplt. Opening 

Br. at 3. 

But Mr. Gibson’s “Rule 8 argument” misses the mark because it concerns the 

merits of the district court’s January 7, 2016 order. Instead, “[a]n appeal from a 

denial of a Rule 60(b) motion addresses only the district court’s order denying the 

motion, and not the underlying decision itself.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 

204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir. 2000). In other words, Mr. Gibson cannot use his 

appeal of the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion as “a substitute for a direct appeal.” Id. 

Mr. Gibson does not mention the motion to recuse in his opening brief, and we 

deem it forfeited. See Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) 

(“[T]he omission of an issue in an opening brief generally forfeits appellate 

consideration of that issue.”). Because Mr. Gibson offers no challenge to the relevant 

orders on appeal, we affirm the district court’s orders entered March 14, 2016 and 

April 18, 2016. 

We grant Mr. Gibson’s motions to supplement the record filed on July 13, 

2016 and October 11, 2016. We deny Mr. Gibson’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and direct him to remit the full filing and docketing fee to the clerk of the 

district court forthwith. See DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 

1991) (“In order to succeed on [a] motion [to proceed in forma pauperis] an appellant 

Appellate Case: 16-1163 Document: 01019708683 Date Filed: 10/21/2016 Page: 4 
5 

must show a financial inability to pay the required filing fees and the existence of a 

reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts”) (emphasis added)). 

 Entered for the Court 

Gregory A. Phillips 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 16-1163 Document: 01019708683 Date Filed: 10/21/2016 Page: 5