Court Opinion

ID: 2963862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:16:23.071619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:47.316266
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          February 7, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1512

                                RICHARD A. MCEACHERN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                            CORRECTIONS, ME COMMN, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Richard A. McEachern on brief pro se.
            ____________________
            Andrew Ketterer,  Attorney General, and  Christopher C.  Leighton,
            _______________                          ________________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                   

                                         -2-

                      Per  Curiam.     On  September  2,  1992,   Richard
                      ___________

            McEachern, a  Maine state  prisoner, filed a  pro se  federal
                                                          ___ __

            civil rights action against Donald Allen, Commissioner of the

            Maine Department of Corrections, and Martin Magnusson, Warden

            of the Maine  State Prison.1  The  parties eventually reached
                                       1

            an  out-of-court settlement  agreement under  which McEachern

            agreed  to  dismiss the  pending  lawsuit in  exchange  for a

            transfer to a prison  in New Jersey.2  At the time, McEachern
                                                2

            was  housed at  Maine's  highest security  prison, the  Maine

            Correctional Institution  in Warren (MCI-Warren).   On  March

            25, 1994, the  parties filed a stipulation of  dismissal with

            prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii).

                      Following   the   dismissal,  McEachern   was  duly

            transferred to a  New Jersey  prison.  On  February 3,  1995,

            however, McEachern  filed a motion and  affidavit pursuant to

            Fed.  R. Civ. P. 60(b)  to void the  settlement agreement and

            reinstate  his lawsuit on the ground that he had been coerced

            into  settling  his  case  by  the  "inhumane  and  punitive"

                                
            ____________________

               1As amended, the complaint also names Deputy Warden Arthur
               1
            Kiskila as a defendant.

               2The agreement  also provided that McEachern could request
               2
            the Maine Department  of Corrections  to provide  him with  a
            Pine Tree Legal Assistance attorney should he need  access to
            Maine legal  materials in connection with  any future actions
            in Maine courts.  

                                         -2-
                                         -2-

            environment at MCI-Warren.3  The motion  was denied, and this
                                      3

            appeal followed.

                      McEachern argues that his Rule 60(b) motion  should

            have  been allowed because it  was filed within  one year and

            set  forth  extraordinary  circumstances   warranting  relief

            pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.  60(b)(6).  We disagree.  A party

            seeking relief under any  provision of Rule 60(b) must  do so

            within  a "reasonable  time."4   Fed. R.  Civ. P.  60(b); see
                                         4                            ___

            also  Planet Corp. v. Sullivan,  702 F.2d 123,  126 (7th Cir.
            ____  ____________    ________

            1983)  (explaining that  what  constitutes a  reasonable time

            depends  on the facts of each case, taking into consideration

            the interest in finality, the reason for delay, the practical

            ability to  learn earlier  of  the grounds  relied upon,  and

            prejudice to other parties).   McEachern failed to adequately

            explain why, after being transferred to New Jersey, he waited

                                
            ____________________

               3McEachern  also alleged,  as  an  additional  ground  for
               3
            reopening  the  dismissed  suit,  that  defendants failed  to
            comply with their agreement  to provide him with a  Pine Tree
            Legal  Assistance attorney.   McEachern  does not  renew this
            argument on appeal, and we deem the issue waived.  

               4Since McEachern filed his  motion within one year, we  do
               4
            not  need  to  decide  which   provision  of  Rule  60(b)  is
            applicable.   We note, however, that to the extent the motion
            is grounded  on alleged misconduct  of an  adverse party,  it
            properly should have been brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
            60(b)(3).  

                                         -3-
                                         -3-

            over  ten months  before seeking  relief based  on coercion.5
                                                                        5

            We think this delay was unreasonable.

                      We add that  McEachern did not claim  that the ill-

            treatment he allegedly received at MCI-Warren was directed at

            forcing him to settle his  lawsuit.  Moreover, the conditions

            of confinement  he described in  meaningful detail--including

            the  number of hours spent  in his cell,  the restrictions on

            activities, the requirement that he wear prison clothing, the

            prohibition on  contact visits, and  the lack of  a canteen--

            fall within  constitutional limits.   Cf. Rhodes  v. Chapman,
                                                  ___ ______     _______

            452 U.S.  337, 347 (1981) (observing  that restrictive, harsh

            conditions are  part of  the penalty that  criminal offenders

            pay  for   their  offense   against  society).     Under  the

            circumstances,  we cannot  say  that the  district court  was

            required to hold a  hearing or that it abused  its discretion

            in denying the requested relief.  See Hoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d
                                              ___ _____    _____

            1, 3  (1st  Cir. 1995)  (stating that  district courts  enjoy

            broad discretion  in deciding motions under Rule 60(b) and we

            review such ruling only for abuse of that discretion).

                      Affirmed.
                      _________

                                
            ____________________

               5Although McEachern  vaguely alludes, in his affidavit, to
               5
            "lingering  psychological damage"  allegedly  caused  by  his
            treatment at  MCI-Warren, his  affidavit reveals that  he had
            been  actively litigating other matters since his transfer to
            New Jersey.   

                                         -4-
                                         -4-