Gibson v. Attorney General of the United States
669 F. App'x 947
10th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Eric Wilmer Gibson filed a prolix, sixty-page complaint naming multiple federal agencies and officials.
- Magistrate judge ordered Gibson to file a short, plain amended complaint complying with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); warned failure to comply could lead to dismissal.
- Gibson attempted to file oversized amended complaints (150 and 301 pages); district court found they did not comply with Rule 8 and dismissed the action on January 7, 2016; judgment entered same day.
- Gibson filed multiple post-judgment motions treated as Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions and motions for reconsideration; the district court denied them (Feb. 11, Mar. 14, and Apr. 18, 2016).
- Gibson appealed; only the March 14 and April 18, 2016 orders were timely appealed. He sought to supplement the record and to proceed in forma pauperis; the court allowed supplementation, denied IFP, and directed payment of full filing fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Rule 60(b) relief may be used to relitigate the underlying Rule 8 dismissal | Gibson contends the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for noncompliance with Rule 8 and that subsequent motions showed compliance | The government argues an appeal of a Rule 60(b) denial reviews only the denial order, not the underlying dismissal; Gibson cannot use Rule 60(b) to substitute for a direct appeal | Court held Rule 60(b) appeal cannot be used to attack the underlying judgment; Gibson’s substantive Rule 8 challenge is not properly before the court (Servants of Paraclete) |
| Whether Gibson preserved an argument that the judge should recuse | Gibson raised a recusal motion in district court | Appellants failed to brief the recusal issue on appeal | Court deemed the recusal argument forfeited for failure to brief it on appeal (Bronson) |
| Whether Gibson’s appeals were timely as to various orders | Gibson filed multiple motions and appeals; contends appellate jurisdiction over orders exists | Court applied the appellate timing rules; some notices were untimely for underlying judgment but timely for specific denials | Court found Gibson’s appeals timely only as to the March 14 and April 18, 2016 orders (Ysais; Fed. R. App. P.) |
| Whether Gibson may proceed IFP on appeal | Gibson sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis | Appellate court requires both inability to pay and a nonfrivolous, reasoned argument to grant IFP | Court denied IFP and directed payment of full filing and docketing fees (DeBardeleben) |
Key Cases Cited
- Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000) (appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) motion does not permit relitigation of the underlying judgment)
- Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2007) (issues omitted from opening brief are generally forfeited on appeal)
- DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1991) (IFP on appeal requires inability to pay and a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument)
- Ysais v. Richardson, 603 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2010) (postjudgment motions do not extend the time to appeal the underlying final judgment)