FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 28, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SCOTT HARRIS KOBEL, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LANSING CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY; FNU LNU (1), Warden,

Lansing Correctional Facility; FNU

LNU (2), Deputy Warden, Lansing

Correctional Facility; FNU LNU (3),

Administrators, Lansing Correctional

Facility; (FNU) NANCE, Custody

Staff Housing C1, Lansing

Correctional Facility; (FNU) REECE,

Custody Staff Housing C1, Lansing

Correctional Facility; FNU LNU (4),

Any/All Unit Team Staff from

February 2013 to May 2013, Lansing

Correctional Facility; (FNU) MOORE,

S.O.R.T., Lansing Correctional

Facility; FNU LNU (5), All A1 Staff,

Lansing Correctional Facility; (FNU)

LONG, Lansing Correctional Facility;

FNU LNU (6), A1 Unit Team Staff,

Lansing Correctional Facility; (FNU)

ZAMORA, Correctional Officer I,

Lansing Correctional Facility; (FNU)

BEYEN, Correctional Officer I,

Lansing Correctional Facility; (FNU)

HEAD, Correctional Officer I, Lansing

Correctional Facility; (FNU) LEE,

Correctional Officer I, Lansing

Correctional Facility; (FNU)

GUNTHRIE, Correctional Officer I,

Lansing Correctional Facility; FNU

LNU (7), All A1 Custody Staff from

No. 14-3042

(D.C. No. 5:13-CV-03088-SAC)

(D. Kan.)
March 27 to April 9, 2013, Lansing

Correctional Facility; (FNU) LORD,

Lansing Correctional Facility; (FNU)

YOUNG, Lansing Correctional

Facility; (FNU) HARTLEY, Lansing

Correctional Facility; (FNU) ZEMA,

Lansing Correctional Facility; (FNU)

ELLIOTT, Lansing Correctional

Facility; (FNU) MUCKENTHALER,

Lansing Correctional Facility; (FNU)

HOLTHAUS, Lansing Correctional

Facility; (FNU) BASKAS,

Correctional Officer, Lansing

Correctional Facility; (FNU)

GRAHAM, Lansing Correctional

Facility; (FNU) PAYNE, Lansing

Correctional Facility,

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

Scott Kobel filed a pro se complaint against various Kansas prison officials

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As required by statute, the district court screened

*

 After examining the brief 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) and 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not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

- 2 -
Mr. Kobel’s complaint to determine whether he stated a non-frivolous basis for

legal relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,

213-16 (2007). Finding none, the district court warned Mr. Kobel that if he did

not correct his complaint and pay the required filing fee, his suit would be

dismissed. Mr. Kobel never complied and the district court entered judgment

dismissing Mr. Kobel’s complaint without prejudice. Mr. Kobel then filed a

motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) but the district court

denied it. It is this denial Mr. Kobel now appeals.

Mr. Kobel argues that the district court should have reinstated his claims

because he changed addresses and never received the district court’s warning. 

But a movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must “show extraordinary

circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” Gonzalez v. Crosby,

545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court

found no such circumstances here because nothing prevented Mr. Kobel from

apprising the district court of his new location or inquiring about the status of his

lawsuit. Neither are we given any reason to think the district court’s analysis or

conclusion amounts to a reversible abuse of discretion. Mr. Kobel’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis is therefore denied and this appeal is dismissed. This

appeal counts as a strike for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 

See Jennings v. Natrona Cnty. Det. Ctr. Med. Facility, 175 F.3d 775, 780

(10th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Standifird, 400 F. App’x 369, 371 (10th Cir. 2010). 

- 3 -
Mr. Kobel is reminded that he must make immediate payment of the unpaid

balance of his appellate filing fee. All other motions are denied. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

- 4 -