Carbajal v. O'Neill
694 F. App'x 666
10th Cir.2017Background
- Carbajal sued Denver, medical staff, and three police officers alleging excessive force, unlawful search/seizure, invasion of privacy, conspiracy, and outrageous conduct; only excessive-force claims against the three officers survived to trial.
- A jury returned a verdict for the officers; the district court entered judgment and awarded the officers $82,674 in attorney’s fees.
- The trial judge later recused himself, stating he believed Carbajal had testified untruthfully.
- Carbajal filed a motion for reconsideration of the fee award 37 days after the fee order (treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for purposes of timeliness); a new judge denied reconsideration.
- Carbajal appealed the denial of reconsideration but had missed the 28-day Rule 60(b) window required to toll the 30-day appeal period, so the court limited review to the denial of reconsideration and found the appeal frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction/timeliness to challenge fee award | Carbajal argued the reconsideration preserved his right to appeal the fee order | Defendants: Carbajal’s Rule 60(b)/reconsideration was filed after 28 days and did not toll the appeal period | Appeal of fee award was untimely; court’s jurisdiction limited to denial of reconsideration |
| Judicial bias re: fee award | Carbajal asserted judge was biased (trial statement about prior city-attorney role; later recusal) | Defendants: trial statements not raised below; recusal flowed from trial events and does not show preexisting bias | Bias argument rejected; trial statement not preserved; recusal based on trial conduct not indicative of disqualifying bias |
| False testimony/new evidence | Carbajal claimed a defense witness testified falsely, warranting reconsideration | Defendants: Carbajal offers no link between alleged falsity and the fee decision and raised the issue too late | New-evidence/false-testimony claim untimely and insufficient to justify Rule 60(b) relief |
| Frivolous appeal / IFP & strike | Carbajal sought in forma pauperis status on appeal | Defendants: appeal lacks nonfrivolous grounds | Appeal deemed frivolous; IFP denied, appeal dismissed, and one strike assessed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lebahn v. Owens, 813 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2016) (Rule 60(b) filing after 28-day window does not extend appeal deadline)
- Zurich N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., Inc., 426 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2005) (Rule 60(b) relief is available only in exceptional circumstances)
- Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised below are forfeited on appeal absent plain-error review)
- United States v. Nickl, 427 F.3d 1286 (10th Cir. 2005) (recusal based on events during trial does not automatically establish disqualifying bias)
- Olson v. Coleman, 997 F.2d 726 (10th Cir. 1993) (appeal is frivolous when result is obvious or arguments are wholly without merit)
- Rolland v. Primesource Staffing, L.L.C., 497 F.3d 1077 (10th Cir. 2007) (IFP leave may be conditioned on existence of reasoned, nonfrivolous appellate arguments)
- Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2008) (law of the case doctrine applies to prior appellate rulings)