IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-11153

Summary Calendar

REZA VAFAIYAN

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS; NORTH TEXAS DRUG TASK FORCE;

BOBBY DILBECK; CHRISTOPHER L TAYLOR; NFN LOVE, Officer; JOHN

SPRAGINS; MARK BALL, Sergeant; WICHITA COUNTY SHERIFF

DEPARTMENT; JIM WHITEHEAD; TOM CALLAHAM, Wichita County

Sheriff; DARRON LIEKER

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CV-69

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Reza Vafaiyan, Texas prisoner # 1361129, is serving a life sentence for a

money laundering conviction. In 2007, Vafaiyan filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint against numerous state officials relating to his arrest and

incarceration. The district court ordered Vafaiyan to respond to a motion

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 27, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 08-11153 Document: 00511276308 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2010
No. 08-11153

pursuant to Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to provide more

factual information regarding his allegations of misconduct. The court granted

Vafaiyan one extension of time. However, Vafaiyan failed to file a timely reply,

and the court dismissed the action for want of prosecution. More than one year

later, Vafaiyan filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) seeking reconsideration of

the judgment on grounds of excusable neglect. The court denied that motion.

Vafaiyan filed a second motion seeking reconsideration or findings and

conclusions with respect to the denial of the first motion. The court denied the

second motion. Vafaiyan now appeals.

Because Vafaiyan’s notice of appeal was untimely as to the underlying

order of dismissal, we review only the denials of the postjudgment motions. See

Halicki v. La. Casino Cruises, Inc., 151 F.3d 465, 470 (5th Cir. 1998). Our

review is for abuse of discretion. See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co.,

6 F.3d 350, 353 (5th Cir. 1993).

Vafaiyan claims inadvertence and excusable neglect for failure to comply

with the Rule 7(a) order, asserting that he was proceeding pro se, had difficulty

with the English language, lacked access to a law library due to being moved to

several units and placement in administrative segregation, a mail delay, lack of

writing materials, and health problems. Thus, he contends, he was entitled to

relief for excusable neglect under Rule 60(b).

We find no abuse of discretion. First, a Rule 60(b)(1) motion based on

excusable neglect must be filed within one year of entry of the judgment or order.

FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c). Vafaiyan’s first motion was filed at the earliest on

August 28, 2008, more than one year after entry of the dismissal order. On that

basis alone, the district court did not abuse its discretion. In addition, Vafaiyan

has not demonstrated grounds for relief. The Rule 7(a) motion sought factual

information, asking Vafaiyan to specify what the defendants conspired to do and

the identity of each defendant engaged in the specific acts that he had alleged

in his complaint. Vafaiyan has not shown how he was prevented from

2

Case: 08-11153 Document: 00511276308 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2010
No. 08-11153

responding. Even pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules, Birl v.

Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981), and ignorance of the law is not a basis

for Rule 60(b)(1) relief. Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 357

(5th Cir. 1993). To the extent that Vafaiyan’s motion might fall under Rule

60(b)(6), which requires a showing of extraordinary circumstances, Vafaiyan’s

arguments likewise fail. See Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212, 216 (5th Cir. 2002).

In sum, we cannot say that the district court’s denial of Vafaiyan’s first motion

was “so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” Seven Elves, Inc.

v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). As Vafaiyan’s second motion did

not raise any different grounds, the district court likewise did not err by denying

it. See Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 364 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004); Latham

v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 F.2d 1199, 1203-04 (5th Cir. 1993).

We also find no error in the district court’s failure to provide reasons. See

FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a)(3), (b). To the extent that Vafaiyan complains about the

lack of appointed counsel, that issue was not encompassed in the postjudgment

motions and, in any case, Vafaiyan showed no exceptional circumstances that

would warrant the appointment of counsel. See Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d

414, 417 (5th Cir. 1990). We do not address any arguments by Vafaiayan

regarding the merits of his § 1983 claims against the defendants as they are not

properly before the court.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 08-11153 Document: 00511276308 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/27/2010