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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

-2-

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , HENRY , and BRISCOE , 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)(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 Compliance to Court’s

Memorandum, Opinion, and Order,” which the district court 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 their rights by entering into a

contract with Lee County to house state prisoners in 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 for 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 federal 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 incarceration 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 the conduct of his keeper, not in

the keeper’s identity.”). Whether the State of New Mexico is permitted to enter

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 appellees’ brief, motion to have

appellants’ legal materials returned to them, motion for summary disposition, and

motion opposing appellees’ representation by the New Mexico Office of the

Attorney General are DENIED. Appellants are reminded that they are obligated to

continue making partial payments on their filing fees until they are paid in full.

Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry

Circuit Judge