* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered su bmitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 7 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

HARRIS W. LEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GARY JOHNSON, Governor, State of New Mexico; ROBERT J. PERRY, Secretary of Corrections; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. No. 01-2191 (D.C. No. CIV-01-343-LH/WWD)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , KELLY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges. **
Mr. Harris W. Lee, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 12 91 and affirm.- 2 -

Mr. Lee’s § 1983 claim seeks damages and equitable relief, alleging, first, that defendants violated certain state statutes and contract requirements by housing state prisoners in privately-owned county c orrectional facilities. He further alleges that the law libraries in these fac ilities have been closed, thereby depriving him of access to the courts. According t o Mr. Lee, these actions violated his rights under the First, Fifth, and Fou rteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and judgment was ente red on May 22, 2001. I R. Doc. 9. Mr. Lee then filed a motion to alter or am end the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) on June 4, 2001. I R. Doc. 1 0. Apparently not realizing that Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) applies to exclude weekends an d holidays in computing the ten-day period of Rule 59(e), see Advisory Committee Note to 1995 Amendment to Rule 59(e), the district court construed the mot ion as one arising under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Van Skiver v. United States , 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 & 1243 n.2 (10th Cir. 1991). The post-judgment motion was the n denied. On June 18, 2001, Mr. Lee filed his notice of appeal from the May 22, 2001 judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(a)(iv). Mr. Lee has no constitutional right to placement ina particular penal institution, private or public. Rael v. Williams , 223 F.3d 1153, 1154 (10th Cir. 2000); Prows v. Federal Bureau of Prisons , 981 F.2d 466, 468 n.3 (10th Cir.- 3 -

1992). Further, Lee’s allegations that defendants violated state laws and contract provisions do not include an allegation of a violat ion of a federally protected right, and therefore, this portion of the complaintwas rightfully dismissed. Baker v. McCollan , 443 U.S. 137, 140 (1979). Further, Lee’s failure to “establish relevant actua l injury,” Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996), or otherwise allege activ e interference with his preparation and filing of legal documents, id . at 350, warrants dismissal of his claim that defendants’ failure to provide a librarydenied him access to the courts. Finally, Lee’s allegations of retaliation are insuf ficient. He alleges no “specific facts showing retaliation because of the exercise of [his] constitutional rights,” Peterson v. Shanks , 149 F.3d 1140, 1144 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotation omitted). For substantially those reasons set forth in the di strict court’s order dated May 22, 2001, I R. Doc. 8, we AFFIRM the district c ourt’s judgment.

Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge