Crowley v. Jones , 296 F. App'x 675 ( 2008 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
October 15, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
HUGH G. CROWLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 08-6078
v. (D.C. No. 5:07-CV-01393-D)
(W.D. Okla.)
JUSTIN JONES, Director,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
In December 2007, Oklahoma state prisoner Hugh G. Crowley brought suit
in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his
constitutional rights in the course of a prison disciplinary proceeding for
possession of contraband. The district court, taking judicial notice that Crowley
had filed a complaint alleging essentially the same claims in 2001 and that this
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument
pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and
judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of
orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the
terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
complaint was dismissed with prejudice, found that his claims were barred by res
judicata. Accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint on January 24, 2008.
Crowley did not file a notice of appeal within 30 days as required by
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). Instead, he filed a series of
motions in the district court, including (1) a motion seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (“OSBI”) to release
documents related to his disciplinary proceeding, (2) a motion “based upon newly
discovered evidence,” which the court construed as a motion pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), 1 (3) a motion for discovery seeking the same
documents from OSBI, and (4) what appears to be a motion for summary
judgment. The court denied the first three motions in an order on March 14 and
the last in an order on March 24. On April 4, Crowley filed his notice of appeal.
Because only the March 14 and March 24 orders were issued within the 30
days prior to Crowley filing his notice of appeal, we have jurisdiction only to the
extent he appeals from those orders. See Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360,
2366 (2007); Manco v. Werholtz, 528 F.3d 760, 761-62 (10th Cir. 2008). For
substantially the same reasons as the district court, we summarily AFFIRM the
denial of each of the four motions identified above. We DENY Crowley’s
“Motion to Supplement Petition to Confirm [sic] to Evidence,” because this
1
Because this motion was filed more than 10 days after the district court’s
order dismissing the complaint, it did not toll the time to appeal that order. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi).
-2-
motion seeks to obtain and introduce evidence relevant only to the merits of his
original complaint, which we need not reach. The motion to proceed on appeal
without prepayment of fees is GRANTED. Appellant is reminded of his
continuing obligation to make partial payments until the filing fee is paid in full.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-