FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 22, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
AUBREY JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 09-6228
v. (W.D. Oklahoma)
FERGUSON PONTIAC BUICK GMC, (D.C. No. 5:07-CV-00834-HE)
INC.; BOBBY HARE, Individually,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
Aubrey Jones, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) request for relief from judgment.
Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
After Jones reached a settlement in his employment discrimination case, the
district court dismissed the matter with prejudice on November 27, 2008.
Approximately eleven months later, on September 21, 2009, Jones moved to
reopen the case so he could pursue a claim pursuant to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair
Pay Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-2, 123 Stat. 5 (2009). Noting that the only
provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) potentially applicable was
Rule 60(b)(6), 1 the district court denied relief on the basis that a simple change in
the law was not grounds for relief in this particular case. See Collins v. City of
Wichita, 254 F.2d 837, 839 (10th Cir. 1958) (holding that in the usual case “[a]
1
Jones’s assertion on appeal that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(3)
is utterly frivolous.
Rule 60(b)(3) allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment
based on “fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an
adverse party.” Regardless of the specific form of the allegation, the
party relying on Rule 60(b)(3) must, by adequate proof, clearly
substantiate the claim of fraud, misconduct or misrepresentation. In
other words, they must show clear and convincing proof of fraud,
misrepresentation, or misconduct. Moreover, the challenged
behavior must substantially have interfered with the aggrieved
party’s ability fully and fairly to prepare for and proceed at trial.
Zurich N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., Inc., 426 F.3d 1281, 1290 (10th Cir. 2005). The
filings attached to Jones’s motion to reopen do not come anywhere close to
satisfying this heavy burden.
-2-
change in the law . . . is not such an extraordinary circumstance which justifies”
relief under Rule 60(b)).
This court reviews the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for
abuse of discretion, keeping in mind that Rule 60(b) is extraordinary relief that
may only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Beugler v. Burlington N. &
Santa Fe Ry. Co., 490 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir. 2007). “Parties seeking relief
under Rule 60(b) have a higher hurdle to overcome because such a motion is not a
substitute for an appeal.” Cummings v. Gen. Motors Corp., 365 F.3d 944, 955
(10th Cir. 2004). “Rule 60(b)(6) relief is . . . difficult to attain and is appropriate
only when it offends justice to deny such relief. The denial of a 60(b)(6) motion
will be reversed only if we find a complete absence of a reasonable basis and are
certain that the decision is wrong.” Zurich N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., Inc., 426 F.3d
1281, 1293 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation and quotations omitted).
With the appropriate standard in mind, this court has reviewed the parties’
appellate filings, the district court’s order denying relief from judgment, and the
entire record on appeal. For those reasons discussed by the district court, the
interests of justice do not favor granting Jones relief from judgment.
-3-
Accordingly, the order of the district court denying Jones’s request for relief from
judgment is hereby AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-