## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 22 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT CHARLES MOORE; RONALD L. BEACHUM, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. GARY JOHNSON, Governor, State of New Mexico; ROBERT PERRY, Secretary of Corrections; KEN BATSON, Lea County Commissioner; JOE R. WILLIAMS, Senior Warden, Lea County Corrections Facility; SANDRA MCFADDEN, Programs Warden, Lea County Corrections Facility; BARRY HERTZOG, Security Warden, Lea County Corrections Facility; PATRICK SNEDEKER, Security Warden, Lea County Corrections Facility; LINDA BRAUX, Librarian, Lea County Corrections Facility; CURTIS LANDRUM, Former Job Coordinator, Lea County Corrections Facility; CATHERLINE BRYANT, Job Coordinator, Lea County Corrections Facility; MARK DONATELLI, Attorney; WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS CORPORATION; MICHAEL MARTIN, Chief of Security, Lea County Corrections Facility; LEA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, Defendants - Appellees. No. 02-2012 D.C. No. CIV-01-695-MV/JDS (D. New Mexico)* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

-2- ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , HENRY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist 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. Robert Charles Moore and Ronald Lee Beachum appeal from the district court’s rejection of their “Objection and Partial C ompliance to Court’s Memorandum, Opinion, and Order,” which the districtcourt properly construed as a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ . P. 60(b). Appellants appeal their claim that the State of New Mexico violated t heir rights by entering into a contract with Lee County to house state prisoners i n violation of the New Mexico Procurement Code. The district court previously entered a dismissal of appellants’ complaint for failure to state a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).-3-

“We review the disposition of Rule 60(b) motions fo r an abuse of discretion. Weitz v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc. , 214 F.3d 1175, 1181 (10th Cir. 2000). “Relief under Rule 60(b) is extraordinary and may only be granted in exceptional circumstances.” Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking
Co. , 909 F.2d 1437, 1440 (10th Cir. 1990). Rule 60(b) is not intended to be a substitute for a direct appeal. Servants of Paraclete v. Does , 204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir. 2000). We agree with the district court that there is no f ederal constitutional component to this claim, see Rael v. Williams , 223 F.3d 1153, 1154 (10th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he fact that an inmate is transferred to , or must reside in, a private prison, simply does not raise a federal constitutional claim . . . .”), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1083 (2001), and that this claim does not implicate any other federal right, see Montez v. McKinna , 208 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2000) (noting that “there is no federal constitutional right to incarc eration in any particular prison or portion of a prison”); cf. Pischke v. Litscher , 178 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A prisoner has a legally protected interest in th e conduct of his keeper, not in the keeper’s identity.”). Whether the State of New Mexico is permitted to e nter into a contract with a county for the incarceration of state prisoners is purely a matter to be resolved under state law.-4-

We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of this suit. The appellants’ outstanding motion to disregard appelle es’ brief, motion to have appellants’ legal materials returned to them, motio n for summary disposition, and motion opposing appellees’ representation by the Ne w Mexico Office of the Attorney General are DENIED. Appellants are reminded that they are obligated to continue making partial payments on their filing fe es until they are paid in full. Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge