FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MARCH 1, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1414 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-00098 -CV -4-SP M-W CS W ILLIE ALBERT SMITH, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us LEONA COLL INS, Cap ta in , B. FORD, Serg ean t, W ILSON, HAROLD T. PARKER, Ass is ta nt W ard en , CHAABAN, R. BOYCE, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 1, 200 7)Be cause the cour t dismi ssed appe llant’s complaint under § 1915( g ), the de fenda nts were 1 no t se rv e d w ithpr oc e ss, did no t a pp e ar i n th e dis tr ic t c ourt , a nd have no t ma de an a

pp e ara nc e in thi s c ourt . The motion to alter or a

mend was untimely

as it was filed be y ond the 10-da y period 2 provided by

Fe d. R. Civ. P . 59(b). 2 Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN A and C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Appe llant i s aF lor ida

pr iso n in m at e. O n Apr il 5, 200 6, the dis tr ic t c ourt, ac tin g purs uant t o 28 U . S. C. § 19 15( g) , dis m iss ed his c om pla int in w hic h he soug ht d am ag es and o the r re lie f unde r 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 f or the de fe ndants ’ pur porte d vi olatio ns o f his c onst itu tio na l r igh ts . Appe llant d id n ot a ppe al the 1
co urt’ s or de r w ith in the thi rty -d ay pe ri od f or takin g an a

ppe al
. I nst ea d, on June 14, 200 6, he f

ile d a“ Re que st t o A lte r or A m en d Ju dgm en t, ” w hic h w e tr eat a s a m otion for r elief under Fe deral Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). T he court denied 2 h i s m o t i o n o n J u l y 3 , 2 0 0 6 , a n do n J u l y 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , h e t i m el y ap p ea l ed th e c o u rt ’s
ru li ng . Inthe br ie f he sub m itt ed

to thi s c ourt i n su

ppor t of his appe al , appe llant
ar gue s th at

the de fe ndants , by

de ny ing him

his m ed ic al pa sse s inr et al ia tio n f or ha vin g f ile d nu m er ous gr ie vanc es , vio la te d hi s r igh ts unde r the F ir st, E igh th, and Fourteenth Am endm ents of the Constit ution
. He contends th at these m edical pa sse s – f or thi ngs lik e a handi ca

ppe d lo ck er

and a r es tr ic tio n pe rm itt ing onl y3

fr ont handc uf fi ng – are ne ce ssary

to al le viate the pa in h e suf fe rs on a cc ount

of his
ar thr iti s and o the r ai lm en ts. H e as se rt s th at the de fe ndants unn ec es sari ly and
w an ton ly inf lic te d pa in o n hi m

by handc uf fi ng h is h an ds b eh ind

his ba ck and forcing him

to bend ov er to re ach his locker. W e re view “ a district court’ s denial of postjudgm ent relief under Federa l Rule of Civil Proce dure 60(b) for abuse of discre tion.” Bivens Gardens Of fice Bl dg ., Inc . v. Barne tt Ban ks of F lo rid a, In c., 14 0 F .3d89 8, 9 05 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ).

“ An appeal of a ruling on a Rule 60(b) m otion , how ever, is narrowin scope, addressing o nly

propriety of the denial or grant of re lief and does not raise issues in the und er ly ing j udgm en t f or r ev ie w . ” A m . Banke rs I ns. Co
. of F lor ida v. N orthw es te rnN at . I ns. Co
. , 198 F . 3d 1 332, 133 8 ( 11th C ir
. 199 9)
. I n pe rt ine nt part , Ru le 60( b) state s: O n m oti on and u

pon suc h te rm s a s are j ust , the c ourt m ay r el ie ve aparty

or a party ’ s le ga l r ep re se ntativ e fr om af ina l j udgm en t, or de r, or

pr oc ee din g f

or the f oll ow ing r ea sons : ( 1) m ist ak e, ina dve rt en ce , sur pr ise , or e xc usa ble ne gle ct ; ( 2) ne w ly

dis co ve re d e vid en ce w hic h by due dil ige nc e co uld

not ha ve be endis co ve re d inti m e to m ove f or ane wtr ia l un de r Ru le 59( b) ; ( 3) fraud (whether heretofore denom inated intrins ic or extrinsic), m isr ep re se ntatio n, or

oth er m isc ondu ct

of an a dve rs e party ; ( 4) the j udgm en t is void ; (5) the j udgm ent has been satisfied, re leased, or discharged, or a pr ior j udgm en t up on whic h it

is ba se d ha s be enr ev er se d or oth er w ise va cate d, or

it is no l onge r equit ab le that the j udgm en t sh oul d have pr ospe ct ive appl ic at ion ; or ( 6) any oth er r ea son j ust if

y ing r el ie f fr om

the ope ratio n of

the j udgm en t. T he m oti on s ha ll be m ad e w ith in a r ea sona ble tim e, and f

or r ea sons ( 1) , ( 2) , and ( 3) not m or e than on e y ear af

te r the4

j udgm en t, or de r, or

pr oc ee din g w as e nte re d or take n. U nde r 28 U
. S. C. § 19 15( g) , apr iso ne r se ek ing to pr oc ee d inf orm a paupe ri s is b ar re d f ro m br ing ing ac ivi l a ct ion : if the pr iso ne r ha s, on 3 or m or e pr ior

oc ca sio ns, w hil e inc ar ce rate d or detained in any

fac ility , brought an action or appeal in a court of the U nited St at es that w as dis m iss ed on the gr ound s th at

it is fr ivo lou s, m al ic iou s, or fa ils to state ac la im

upo n w hic h r el ie f m ay

be gr an te d, unl es s th e pr iso ne r is u n d e r i mm i n e n td a n g e r

o f s e r i o u s p h ys i c a l i n

ju ry. W e h av e rea d app el la nt ’s bri ef l ib eral ly becau se he is pro ceed in g p ro se. Se e Bo xe r X v. H ar

ri s, 437 F . 3d 1 107, 111 0 ( 11th C ir
. 200 6) , pe tit ionf or c er t. filed, ( U. S. Nov. 6, 2006) (N o. 06-7654). H owever , this liberal construction do es not a id a ppe llant. A s no te d a

bove , the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed his c om pla int
w ith out c onsi de ri ng the m er its , pur suant t o 28 U . S. C. § 19 15( g)
. B ec au se appellant adm itted that the court correctly assessed his liti gation h istory as oth er w ise barr ing him

pur suant t o § 1 915( g) f

ro m be ing gr an te d inf

orm a paupe ri s status , the onl y

iss ue that he c anr ai se on a ppe al is that the § 19 15( g) bar shou ld not appl y be ca use he is in “ im

m ine nt d an ge r of

phy sic al inj ur

y . ” H ow ev er , he f a i l s t o ar g u e i n h i s b r i e f

th a th e i s i n i mm i n e n td a n g e r o f p h ys i c a l i n

ju ry; the re fo re , he ha s a

bandon ed thi s is sue . S ee Ch ef

fe r v. Re no, 55 F . 3d 1 517, 151 9 n.1 (11th Cir. 1995 ) (noting that iss ues not add ressed in the brief ar e deem ed ab an done d)
. Mo re ove r, sin ce the c ourt di sm iss ed his c om pla int w ith out r ea ch ing5

the m er its of

his c la im s, the m er its are not a t i ssu e he re . H is arg um en t r eg ar din g the m erits of his claim s are thus m isplaced and inapp ropriate. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing a ppe llant’ s R

ule 60( b) m oti on. AFFIRMED.