Knight v. Knight

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 16 2005
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JAMES DALE KNIGHT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 04-8000
(D.C. No. 02-CV-1050-ABJ)
NINA R. KNIGHT; JANIECE I. (D. Wyo.)
KNIGHT; WILLIAM J. KNIGHT;
MARGRET KNIGHT,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE , ANDERSON , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. 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. 36.3.
Plaintiff James Dale Knight, proceeding pro se, appeals the order denying
his motion for post-judgment relief in this case seeking adjudication of ownership
of real property in Wyoming and Alaska. We affirm.
Motion to Dismiss
As a preliminary matter, we deny defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal
on the ground that this court did not grant permission for the appeal. The district
court entered a final judgment. Consequently, plaintiff was not required to obtain
permission to appeal, and this court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Merits
The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint
because plaintiff’s claims to the real property in question were based on oral
agreements that were not to be performed within one year. The court held that the
Wyoming statute of frauds, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-23-105, rendered the alleged
agreements void and unenforceable. Accordingly, the court dismissed plaintiff’s
case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1
Almost a year later, plaintiff filed his motion to reconsider under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)(2) & (3), on the grounds of newly discovered evidence and
1
This was the second case plaintiff filed in the Wyoming federal district
court against these defendants seeking title to the real property in question. The
prior action, case No. 02-CV-1017-J, was also dismissed. See R. doc. 18, at 3
n.1.
-2-
misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party. “We review a district
court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion.” Cummings v.
Gen. Motors Corp. , 365 F.3d 944, 954 (10th Cir. 2004). The district court’s
ruling will be upheld unless it represents “a definite, clear or unmistakable error.”
Id. at 955. Relief will be granted under Rule 60(b) only in exceptional
circumstances. Id. at 954.
The newly discovered evidence plaintiff claims entitles him to relief is
“escrow laws and events presented” in a quiet-title action in an Alaska state court.
Reply Br. at 5. It is clear that this evidence existed prior to the dismissal. Even
if plaintiff asserts he was unaware of it before his case was dismissed, he has not
made the requisite showing that he had made a diligent attempt to discover it
before dismissal. See Webber v. Mefford , 43 F.3d 1340, 1345 (10th Cir. 1994)
(stating evidence available to plaintiffs before judgment would not support
reconsideration where there was no showing that counsel made diligent yet
unsuccessful attempt to discover it). Moreover, plaintiff has not demonstrated
how this evidence warrants relief from dismissal. See Computerized Thermal
Imaging, Inc. v. Bloomberg, L.P. , 312 F.3d 1292, 1300 (10th Cir. 2002).
Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to reconsider
on this ground.
-3-
Plaintiff’s second ground to set aside the judgment is misrepresentation or
misconduct by an adverse party. He apparently reasserts his claim that defendants
fraudulently deprived him of his interest in the subject real property. He also
complains that the district court did not address his fraud claim in its order of
dismissal. These arguments challenge the dismissal order and should have been
brought in a direct appeal. “A Rule 60(b) motion is not intended to be a
substitute for a direct appeal.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does , 204 F.3d 1005,
1009 (10th Cir. 2000). In addition, plaintiff has failed to allege that “the
challenged behavior . . . substantially . . . interfered with [his] ability fully and
fairly to prepare for and proceed at trial.” Cummings , 365 F.3d at 955.
Therefore, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
reconsideration on this ground.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Defendants’ motion to
dismiss the appeal is DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-4-