Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02249/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02249-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eugene Nelson
Appellant
New Mexico Parole Board
Appellee

Document Text:

.. 

J 

F !LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 1991 

:ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

EUGENE NELSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

NEW MEXICO PAROLE BOARD, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-2249 

(D.C. No. CV-90-287-JP) 

(Dist. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Eugene Nelson appeals the denial of his motion for relief 

from judgment filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). We 

affirm. 

Mr. Nelson, an inmate in the Central New Mexico Correctional 

Facility, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 u.s.c. S 1983 

*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: 90-2249 Document: 010110034180 Date Filed: 04/15/1991 Page: 1 
.. against the New Mexico Parole Board. Nelson alleged that because 

the Board had denied him parole, it had violated his "liberty 

interest protected by due process." Rec., vol. I, at 2. He 

requested compensatory and punitive damages totalling twenty-six 

thousand dollars ($26,000.00), as well as one thousand five 

hundred dollars ($1,500.00) in damages for each day he was 

confined in violation of his civil rights. Id. at 5. 

On August 7, 1990, the district court dismissed Nelson's 

complaint on defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion. In its 

opinion and order, the court held that the Parole Board is not a 

"person" under 42 u.s.c. § 1983, rec., vol. I, doc. 12, quoting 

Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 2309, 

2312 (1982), and also that the state had not waived its immunity 

under the Eleventh Amendment, citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 

159 (1985). On September 11, Nelson moved for reconsideration of 

the district court's order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). 

The court denied this motion on October 12. 

We begin by defining the scope of Nelson's appeal. A party 

must file a notice of appeal within thirty days of entry of the 

judgment from which he appeals. Fed. R. App. 4(a)(l). Because 

more than thirty days elapsed between the district court's 

dismissal order and the instant appeal, an appeal from that order 

would be timely only if the motion for reconsideration tolled the 

running of the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(4). In general, this 

court will construe any post-judgment motion questioning the 

correctness of the judgment filed within ten days of entry of that 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2249 Document: 010110034180 Date Filed: 04/15/1991 Page: 2 
,. 

judgment as a Rule 59(e) motion. See Miller v. 

Leavenworth·-Jefferson Elec. Coop. Inc., 653 F.2d 1378, 1380 (10th 

Cir. 1981). Such a motion tolls the time for filing an appeal 

under Rule 4(a)(4). See id. 

In the instant case, however, Nelson did not file his motion 

for reconsideration until more than ten days from the date of the 

district court's judgment dismissing his complaint, and it 

therefore did not toll the time for appealing from that judgment. 

Nelson's notice of appeal was timely, however, with respect to the 

denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. This court is thus limited to 

reviewing whether Nelson's Rule 60(b) motion was properly denied. 

We review the district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion 

under an abuse of discretion standard. See Republic Resources v. 

ISI Petroleum West Caddo Drilling Program 1981, 836 F.2d 462, 465 

(10th Cir. 1987); see also Browder v. Director, Dept. of 

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978) (Rule 60(b) motion 

reviewed only for abuse of discretion and appeal from denial of 

such motion does not bring up underlying judgment for review). We 

hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying the Rule 60(b) motion. 

In consideration of the foregoing, we AFFIRM the judgment of 

the district court. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2249 Document: 010110034180 Date Filed: 04/15/1991 Page: 3