T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel
. I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a ss ista n c e in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### D e c e m b e r26,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
D A V I D A . W I LLI A M S, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t,
v. 1 8 T H J UDI CI AL DI S T RI CT OF K A N SA S; STA TE O F K A N SA S; SEDG W I CK CO UN TY; NO LA T. F O U L S T O N , S e d g w ick C o u n ty D istri ct A tt o rne y ; K E V IN O ’C O N N O R , S e d g w ick C o u n ty A s s i s t a n tD i s tr i c tA t t o r n e y, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 3363 ( D. C. No . 0 3
- CV- 3 4 2 1
- S AC)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. **
D avi d A
. W i l l i ams, a s t at e i nm at e appe ar i ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om t he d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s mo t i o n fo rr e l i e f

f r o m j u d g me n tp u r s u a n tt o F e d
. R.- 2 -

C iv. P. 60 (b). M r. W il li am s so u g h t r eli ef fro m a jud g m en t of

the d istri ct co u rt d ism issi n g h is ci v il ri g h ts co m p lai n t bro u g h t pu rsua n t t o 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 . In 2003, the di s tr i ctcourtl i ber al l ycons trued thatcompl ai ntt o al l ege vi ol at i ons of M r . W i l l i ams’ s fede r al r i ght s bythe j udge and di s tr i ctatt or neyw ho part i ci pat ed in h is st ate c ri m inal tr ial
. T h e d istri ct co u rtd eterm ined that, in es sen ce , M r. W i l l i ams w as chal l engi ng the vol unt ar i nes s of hi s pl ea a gr eementand r eques t i ng thatthe di s tr i ctcourtvaca t e hi s s t at e cr i m i nal s ent ence and al l ow forei thernew p lea n e g o tiatio n s o r a trial. B e c a u se th e re lief M r. W ill iam s s o u g h t so u n d e d in habea s corpus , and not§ 1983, t he di s tr i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntfor fa il u re to state a c lai m . M r. W il li am s d id n o t app ea l th at de cisi o n . M r. W i l l i ams’ s m ot i on forr el i ef f r om j udgm entnow r eques t s r ei ns t at ementof that
m att eron gr ounds t hatM r . W i l l i ams coul d pr ove hi s cl ai m s i f gi ven the
o p p o r tu n i ty. W e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng on a mot i on forr el i ef f r om j udgm entfor an abus e of di s cr et i on. Sorbo v. U ni t ed St at es Par cel Ser vi ce, 432 F. 3d 1169, 1177 ( 10th C i r . 2005)
. A ccor di ng t o R ul e 60( b) , a mot i on forr el i ef f r om ju d g m e n t “ s h a ll b e m a d e w ith in a re a s o n a b le tim e .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b ). M o re o v e r, su c h a m o tio n m a yo n lyb e g ra n ted fo r th e fo llo w in g re a so n s: (1 ) m ista k e , ina d v e rte n c e , su rp rise , o r e x c u sa b le n e g lec t; (2 ) n e w ly di s cover ed evi dence w hi ch bydue di l i gence coul d nothave be en di s cover ed i n t i m e t o m ove fora new tr i al underR ul e 59( b) ; ( 3) fr aud (w h ethe r he retofo re d en o m inated intr insic o r ex tr insic), m i s r epr es ent at i on, orotherm i s conductof an a dver s e party ; ( 4) theI n i t s or der , the di s tr i ctcourtal s o deni ed tw o m ot i ons forr el i ef f i l ed by 1 M r . W i l l i ams on the gr ounds thatt he r el i ef s ounded i n habea s corpus , and thatt he p r o s e c u t o r s we r e p r o t e c t e d b ya b s o l u t e i mmu n i ty . To t h e e x t e n tM r . W i l l i a ms chal l enges thatpor t i on of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or deron appea l , w e affi r m for s u b s ta n tia lly th e s a m e re a s o n s s e t fo rt h b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt . - 3 - j udgm enti s voi d; ( 5) the j udgm enthas been s at i s fi ed, r el eas ed, or di s char ged, ora pr i orj udgm entupon w hi ch i ti s bas ed has been r ever s ed orotherw i s e vac at ed, ori ti s no l ongerequi t abl e thatthe j udgm ents houl d have pr os pect i ve appl i cat i on; or( 6) anyotherr eas on ju s tif y in g re lie f

f ro m th e o p e ra tio n o f

th e ju d g m e n t. Id. B ecause M r. W i l l i am s has offered n o ex planat i on for the tw o-y ear l apse betw een the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s § 1983 act i on and hi s m ot i on for
r el i ef f r om j udgm ent , and has nototherw i s e s how n thathi s cas e fa l l s i nt o one of the s i x narr ow cat egor i es underw hi ch r el i ef f r om j udgm enti s appr opr i at e, the di s tr i ct court di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. 1 M r. W ill iam s’s a p p e a l is “ w ith o u t m e rit in th a t itlac k s a n a rg u a b le b a sis in eith er law o r fa ct. ” T h o m p so n v . G ibso n , 2 8 9 F . 3 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 2 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). W e D E N Y M r . W i l l i ams’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d I FP under§ 1915( a) ( 1) and D IS M IS S th is a p p e a l p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(i). M r. W ill iam s is
re sp o n sib le fo r th e im m e d iate p a ym e n t o f th e u n p a id b a lan c e o f th e a p p e llate fi l i n g fe e . Th e d i s mi s s a l o f th i s a p p e a l c o u n t s a s o n e s tr i k e p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 (g ). S e e J e n n in g s v . N a tr o n a C o u n ty D e t. C tr . M e d . F a c ility, 1 7 5 F .3 d 7 7 5 ,- 4 -

7 8 0 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ). E n tered fo r th e C o u rt
P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge