Opinion ID: 749207
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Walters' Reinstatement Claim

Text: 12 The district court properly denied Walters' request for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Among the grounds upon which a party may obtain relief under Rule 60(b) are mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), and any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment, id. 60(b)(6). The district court need not specify which clause of Rule 60(b) serves as the basis for its decision, see Pelican Production Corp. v. Marino, 893 F.2d 1143, 1146 (10th Cir.1990), and in this case the district court did not specify which clause Walters' motion was based on, (Aplt.App. (D.Ct.Order) at 345). Rather, the court concluded that, regardless of which clause Walters' claim was based on, the claim was barred by the law of the case doctrine. (Id. at 345-46.) We agree. 13 In his Rule 60(b) motion, Walters sought a declaration that his insurance policy had not lapsed. However, the district court had previously ruled in its April 4, 1994 order that Walters was not entitled to reinstatement of the policy. (Id. at 297-98.) Walters filed a notice of appeal from that ruling, but never briefed or argued the issue to this court. As we noted in denying Walters' petition for rehearing, Walters thus forfeited his right to appellate consideration of the reinstatement issue. (Id. at 593.) In its April 4, 1994 order, the district court determined that the jury had not found that Walters was disabled for the entire time period at issue, and thus that he was not entitled to reinstatement. The issue of whether Walters' policy lapsed also turns on whether he was disabled for the entire time period at issue. Accordingly, the district court properly concluded that the law of the case doctrine prevented Walters from relitigating the issue of whether he was still entitled to the benefits of his insurance policy. See Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Watchman, 52 F.3d 1531, 1536 n. 4 (10th Cir.1995) (holding that the law of the case doctrine prevent[s] the relitigation of [issues] in subsequent proceedings in the same case except in rare cases). 14 Walters now argues that the issue of reinstatement to the policy is distinct from the issue of whether his policy lapsed, and thus that the law of the case doctrine should not be applied. Even if these issues were distinct, however, Walters would not prevail because he never raised the non-lapse issue prior to the Rule 60(b) motion currently on appeal. As the district court noted in its order denying Walters' motion, Walters had every opportunity to litigate these issues to this court and on appeal to the Tenth Circuit. (Aplt.App. at 346.) Walters did not take the opportunity to litigate non-lapse as a distinct issue, and thus has no viable claim for relief on that basis under Rule 60(b). 15 Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Walters' motion for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).