Opinion ID: 2976732
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Request for Relief from Judgment

Text: Appellant has failed to demonstrate the existence of any extreme, unusual or extraordinary circumstances in this case that justifies reexamining the merits of his underlying 3 claim. In some circumstances, the failure to grant a request for an extension of time may warrant relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), however, the objections in such a case must have sufficient merit that the court’s consideration creates some possibility of a contrary outcome. See Williams, 346 F.3d at 614. As the district court observed, ten days provided adequate time to file objections to the report since those objections had to be based on evidence that was already before the court. Moreover, Appellant’s objections merely restate his First Amendment claim, which was rejected for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Brumley v. Wingard, 269 F.3d 629, 647 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[A] district court does not abuse its discretion when it denies post-judgment relief to a party raising the same issues and arguments post-judgment as those rejected by the district court in its prior (final) judgment.”). What is more, even assuming that Appellant had a constitutional right of access to the courts to file his petition, see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996), and that the State failed to provide him with a legal assistant–points we need not decide–his claim still fails. “Our own court, like other courts of appeals, has always understood the Supreme Court to have meant what it said in holding that prisoners must be provided adequate law libraries ‘or’ adequate assistance from persons with legal training”–not both. Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996, 1003 n.5 (6th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added); see also Holt v. Pitts, 702 F.2d 639, 640 (6th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (“[A] prisoner’s constitutionally-guaranteed right of access to the courts has been protected when a state provides that prisoner with either the legal tools necessary to defend himself, e.g., a state-provided law library, or the assistance of legally-trained personnel.”) (emphasis added). Appellant–who is literate and who, according to the magistrate judge, “has proven to be articulate and very capable of communicating to the court,” JA 80–does not contend that he was denied access to the 4 prison’s law library or to necessary legal materials or that the library was inadequate. The record indeed refutes any such notion. Thus, as the magistrate judge and the district court accurately concluded, Appellant “has not established actual prejudice, nor has [he] shown that defendants were responsible for the failure to file his petition.” Id.