Craft v. Global Expertise in Outsourcing
657 F. App'x 730
10th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Louis Craft, a pro se prisoner, sued defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants in Sept. 2014 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- This court affirmed the summary-judgment ruling in April 2015 (Craft v. Glob. Expertise in Outsourcing, 601 F. App’x 748).
- After the appellate decision, Craft filed four post-appeal motions in district court: a Rule 60(b)(1) motion to set aside one judgment and three orders (alleging a "mistake" in the appeal), a motion to compel discovery to support the Rule 60(b)(1) motion, a motion for leave to file supplemental versions of those motions, and a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the district court’s January 11 order.
- The district court struck the Rule 60(b)(1) motion and the discovery motion as either beyond its authority to alter an appellate decision and/or untimely, and it denied the leave-to-supplement and Rule 59(e) motions for the same reasons.
- Craft appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion in striking/denying those motions; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused its discretion in striking Rule 60(b)(1) motion seeking to set aside appellate decision | Craft argued motion was timely (filed within a year of the April 2015 appellate decision) and that the appellate decision was unfairly obtained by alteration of his brief | District court argued it lacked authority to set aside an appellate decision and that the motion was untimely as to the district-court orders/judgment | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion: it lacked authority to set aside the appellate decision and the motion was untimely as to the district-court orders |
| Whether discovery motion related to Rule 60(b)(1) should have been allowed | Craft sought discovery to support his claim that opposing counsel altered his appellate brief | District court struck the discovery motion because it tied to an unauthorized/untimely Rule 60(b)(1) effort | Affirmed — denial appropriate because underlying Rule 60(b)(1) relief was invalid/untimely |
| Whether leave to file supplemental Rule 60(b)(1) motion and supplemental discovery motion should have been granted | Craft sought leave to supplement his motions to add facts/claims | District court denied leave consistent with its prior rulings that it lacked authority and the motions were untimely | Affirmed — denial reasonable given prior rulings |
| Whether Rule 59(e) motion to alter the January 11 order should have been granted | Craft argued reconsideration and raised fraud/mistake contentions | District court denied because the motion attempted to set aside appellate decision and was otherwise untimely/mischaracterized fraud as mistake | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; motions failed to show entitlement to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Walters v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 703 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2013) (standard of review: Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e) reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (pro se filings are liberally construed but court will not act as advocate)
- Zurich N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., Inc., 426 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2005) (fraud on the court is exempt from Rule 60(c)(1)’s one-year time limit)