Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01070/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01070-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randy Barnes
Appellee
Brandon (#09)
Appellee
Kerman-Ray Carr
Appellant
Priscilla-Denise Carr
Appellant
Ferkam Inc.
Appellee
Fereidoon Samimi
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

KERMAN-RAY CARR; PRISCILLADENISE CARR, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

v. 

FERKAM INC., d/b/a Extreme Towing & 

Recovery; FEREIDOON SAMIMI; 

RANDY BARNES; BRANDON (#09), 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 16-1070 

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01419-REB-MEH) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, HOLMES, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Kerman-Ray Carr and Priscilla-Denise Carr appeal the district court’s denial of 

their motion to reconsider its order dismissing their civil action.1

 We review an order 

 *

 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 

10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 The district court dismissed the action on November 25, 2015. On February 

22, 2016, the Carrs filed their motion to reconsider and a motion to reopen the time to 

file an appeal. The district court denied those motions on February 23, 2016, and 

February 24, 2016, respectively. The Carrs then filed a notice of appeal on March 7, 

2016. On appeal, the Carrs don’t challenge the district court’s denial of their motion 

to reopen the time to file an appeal. Thus, they have waived any challenge to that 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

June 20, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1070 Document: 01019640924 Date Filed: 06/20/2016 Page: 1 
2 

denying a motion to reconsider2

 for abuse of discretion. Walters v. Wal-Mart Stores, 

Inc., 703 F.3d 1167, 1172 (10th Cir. 2013). And while we will construe the Carrs’ 

pro se filings liberally, we won’t act as their advocate. See Garrett v. Selby Connor 

Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).

In dismissing the underlying action with prejudice, the district court adopted 

the recommendation of a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge, in turn, based its 

recommendation to dismiss on the Carrs’ failure to appear at a status conference and 

respond to a show cause order. 

In asking the district court to reconsider its order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation and dismissing their case, the Carrs suggested that they 

failed to appear at the status conference and respond to the show cause order because 

they never received from the court “any mail, documents, notices, etc., regarding 

[their] case.” R. 188. And they attributed their non-receipt of those documents to the 

 

order. See City of Colorado Springs v. Solis, 589 F.3d 1121, 1135 n.5 (10th Cir. 

2009). And because the Carrs didn’t file a notice of appeal until March 7, 2016, we 

therefore lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s November 25, 2015 order 

dismissing their case. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (“In a civil case . . . the notice 

of appeal . . . must be filed . . . within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order 

appealed from.”); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing 

of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”). Nevertheless, 

the March 7, 2016 notice of appeal is timely as to the district court’s February 23, 

2016 order denying the Carrs’ motion to reconsider. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). 

Accordingly, we limit our review to that order. 

2

 “The federal rules do not recognize a motion to reconsider. A litigant seeking 

reconsideration must file a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e), or a motion seeking relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” 

Ysais v. Richardson, 603 F.3d 1175, 1178 n.2 (10th Cir. 2010). We construe the 

Carrs’ motion to reconsider as a Rule 60(b) motion because they filed it outside of 

Rule 59(e)’s 28-day time limit. See id. 

Appellate Case: 16-1070 Document: 01019640924 Date Filed: 06/20/2016 Page: 2 
3 

court’s refusal to use their correct mailing address. Specifically, they complained that 

the court refused to comply with their repeated instructions to omit both the twoletter state identifier and the ZIP code from their mailing address. 

The district court rejected this argument. It concluded that the Carrs’ 

“purported failure to receive mailings from the court [was] most likely attributable to 

a deliberate campaign on their part to refuse such mail.” Id. at 251-52. Because the 

district court “strongly suspect[ed]” that the Carrs were physically receiving the 

court’s mail but deliberately choosing to return it, and because it found “no rational, 

nonfrivolous basis” for this behavior, the district court concluded that the Carrs failed 

to make “a showing of exceptional circumstances warranting relief from” its order 

dismissing the action. Id. at 251-53; see Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 

1243 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary and is warranted 

only in exceptional circumstances.”). Thus, the district court denied the Carrs’ 

motion to reconsider. 

On appeal, the Carrs don’t challenge the district court’s suspicion that they 

physically received the court’s mail but deliberately chose not to accept it. Instead, 

they suggest that they did, in fact, have a justification for doing so. Specifically, the 

Carrs allege that their religious beliefs forbid them from accepting any mail that 

bears what they characterize as the mark of the beast—i.e., “any enumeration or 

marks from any government.” Aplt. Br. at 5 (citing Revelation 14:9-11). And they 

maintain that ZIP codes and two-letter state identifiers constitute such marks.

Appellate Case: 16-1070 Document: 01019640924 Date Filed: 06/20/2016 Page: 3 
4 

But the Carrs didn’t raise this argument—i.e., that their religious beliefs 

entitled them to special mailing procedures or to reject the court’s mail if it failed to 

comply with those procedures—in their motion to reconsider. Nor do they provide a 

record citation in their opening brief demonstrating that they otherwise raised this 

argument below. See 10th Cir. R. 28.2(C)(2) (requiring briefs to “cite the precise 

reference in the record where the issue was raised and ruled on”). We decline to 

address the argument for the first time on appeal. See Kleinsmith v. Shurtleff, 571 

F.3d 1033, 1039 (10th Cir. 2009). 

Because the Carrs fail to demonstrate that the district court abused its 

discretion in denying their motion to reconsider, we affirm. 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 16-1070 Document: 01019640924 Date Filed: 06/20/2016 Page: 4