Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30564 Su m m ar yC al endar R IC K E YE VA N S , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. T RAVI S W I L L IAMS ; B AR RE T T B OE KE R; ST EV E BR ENG ET T S Y ; R AND Y D U C O T E ; J IM M YS M IT H , D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he M i ddl e D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 3: 09- C V
- 43 B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * R i ckey E van s, L ou i si an a pri soner # 108 026 , h as fil ed a m ot i on t o proceed i n f orm a pa u peri s ( IFP ) on ap pea l cha l l en gi n g t h e di st ri ct court’ s c e rtif i cat i on th a t h is a p p e a l w a s n o t t a k e n in g o o dfa ith . S ee B augh v. T aylor , 117 F. 3d 197, 199- 202 ( 5t h C i r . 1997) . The d i st r i c tcour tdi sm i ss ed Evans’ s 42 U . S. C . § 1983 c o m pl ai ntf

o rfail ur e t o e xha us thi s a dm i ni s t r at ive r e m e di e s b e c aus e Evan s conceded t h at hi s app ealf rom t h e deci si on rendered f ol l ow i n g h i s di sci pl i n ary

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April8, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-30564 Document: 00511074661 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2010N o. 09- 30564

2 pr o c e e di ng w as r ej e c t e d a s unt i m e l y. Fo l l o w i ng t he de ni alo f apo s tj udg m e nt m o tio n fo rre c o n s id e r a tio n , E v a n s file dan o tic e o f a p p e a l. E van s’ s I F P “ m ot i on m u stbe di rect ed sol el y t o the t ri alcou rt ’ s reason s f or th e cer ti fi ca ti on de ci sion . ” Baugh , 11 7 F . 3 dat 20 2 . T h i s co u r t’s i n q u i ryi n to goodfai t h “i s l i m i t ed to w h et h er t h e app eali n volves l egal poi n t s argua bl e on th eir m erits (an dthe refore n ot f rivo l ou s). ” Ho w ar d v . Ki ng , 707 F. 2d 215, 220 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 3 ) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s a n dcita tion om itted ). T h e noti ce of

app eali n t h i s case w as n otfil ed w i t h i n 3 0 da ys of t h e entry o f ju d g m e n t. S eeF ED . R. A PP . P. 4( a) . E vans’ s m ot i on f orr ec ons i der at i on w as file dm o r e th a n 1 0 d a y s a fte rth e e n tr yo f th e o r d e rit c h a l l e n g e d , a n dit is properl y constr u ed as a m ot i on forreli ef f rom j u dg m en tpu rsuan tt o F ED . R. C IV . P . 6 0 (b ) th a t d idn o t s u s p e n dth e tim e fo rfilin gan o tic e o f a p p e a l. I d. W e t hus c o n c lu d e th a t E v a n s ’ s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l is tim e lyo n lya s to th e d e n ia l o f h is m ot i on f

or r econsi derati on . T h i s c ou rtrevi ew s t h e den i alof a R u l e 60(b) m ot i on fo ra n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . E d w ard s v. C i ty of Hou st on , 7 8 F . 3 d98 3 , 99 5 ( 5 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) ( e n b a n c). E v a n s a r g u e s th a t h is a p p e a l fr o m th e d is c ip lin a r yd e c is io n w a s u n tim e ly t h rough no fau l tof

hi s ow n . H e a sser t s that p ri son of f i ci al s r epea t edl y separated h i m from hi s paper s and dam aged ordes t r oye d hi s appealdr af t s untilhe w as f i nal l y abl e t o f

i l e a n appeals eve r alm ont hs af t erhi s di sc i pl i nary he a r i ng. Evans ’ s a r gum e ntc anno tb e c o ns t r ue d as o ne o f e xc us ab l e ne gl e c tw ar r ant i ng r e lie f u n d e rR u le 6 0 (b )(1 ) b e c a u s e h e a lle g e s th a t h is fa ilu r e to file atim e ly a p p e a l w a s th e re s u lt o f r e a s o n s b e y o n dh is co n tr o l. S ee P i on eerI n v. S ervs . Co. v . B r u n s w ick A ss o cs . L td . P ’ sh ip , 507 U . S . 380 , 394
- 95 (1993). E van s does not a ss e rt, a n dth e re co rd d o e s n o t su g g e st, th e a p p li ca b il ityof R u le 6 0 (b )(2), ( 3 ), (4), or ( 5) . N or d o E van s’ s all egati on s d em on st rat e the extraordi n ary ci rcum st an ces n e c e s s a r yto w a r r a n t r e lie f u n d e rR u le 6 0 (b )(6 ). S eeHes s v . Co ck re ll , 281 F. 3d 212 , 216 ( 5th C i r. 200 2) . A ccor di n gl y, t h e den i alof E van s’ s R u l e 60(b) m ot i on Case: 09-30564 Document: 00511074661 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2010N o. 09- 30564

3 w a s n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Se eEdw ar ds , 7 8 F .3 da t 9 9 5 ; S even E l ves, I n c. v. Eskena zi , 6 3 5 F .2d 3 9 6 , 4 0 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 1 ). T h e di st ri ct court’ s cert i f i cat i on t h at E van s’ s ap pea l i s n ot t ak en i n good fa ith is u p h e ld , h is m o tio n fo rIF P s ta tu s o n a p p e a l is d e n ie d , a n dh is a p p e a l is d is m is s e da s fr iv o lo u s . SeeB augh , 1 1 7 F .3 d a t 2 0 2 n .2 4 . T h e d is m is s a l o f th is a p p e a l a s fr iv o lo u s co u n ts a s a s tr ik e fo rth e p u r p o s e s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). S ee Ade pegb a v. Ham m o ns , 1 03 F. 3d3 83 , 3 87
- 88 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 6) . W e c aut i o n Eva ns th a t o n c e h e a c c u m u la te s th r e e s tr ik e s , h e m a yn o tp r o c e e dIF P in a n yciv il act i on or ap pea lf

i l ed w h i l e he i s i n carcer ated or detai n ed i n a n y faci l i t y u n l ess h e is u n d e rim m in e n t d a n g e ro f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y . S ee§ 1 9 1 5 (g). I F P DE NI ED ; A P P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; S ANC T I ON WARNI NG I S S UED . Case: 09-30564 Document: 00511074661 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/08/2010