David H. Johns v. Stephen W. Kaiser, Warden Attorney Gen. of the State of Oklahoma, 107 F.3d 880 (10th Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
David H. Johns v. Stephen W. Kaiser, Warden Attorney Gen. of the State of Oklahoma, 107 F.3d 880 (10th Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
40 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gerald v. Locksley (nmd, 2011-05-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gerald v. Locksley
D.N.M. · 2011 · confidence medium
Further, the Tenth Circuit has held that su *1102 pervisors are not liable under § 1983 “unless there is an affirmative link between the constitutional deprivation and the supervisor’s exercise of control or direction, his personal participation, or his failure to supervise.” Kiesling v. Troughton, 107 F.3d 880, at *2 (10th Cir.1997)(citing Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1527 (10th Cir.1988)).
cited Cited "see" Floyd v. Coors Brewing Co.
Colo. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bellairs v. Coors Brewing Co., 907 F.Supp. 1448 (D.Colo.1995), aff'd 107 F.3d 880 (10th Cir.1997).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Barker v. BD. OF CTY. COM'RS OF CTY. OF LA PLATA
D. Colo. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Anderson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 107 F.3d 880 , 1997 WL 121213, *2 (10th Cir.1997) (unpublished opinion) (attached to this order in accordance with the Tenth Circuit's General Order of November 29, 1993) (government did not abandon action when it timely responded to a litigant's motion for summary judgment); Mason v. Lister, 562 F.2d 343, 345 (5th Cir.1977) (district court's refusal to enter default was not abuse of discretion where government responded promptly to motion for default judgment).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Barker v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of La Plata
D. Colo. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Anderson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 107 F.3d 880 , 1997 WL 121213, *2 (10th Cir.1997) (unpublished opinion) (attached to this order in accordance with the Tenth Circuit’s General Order of November 29, 1993) (government did not abandon action when it timely responded to a litigant’s motion for summary judgment); Mason v. Lister, 562 F.2d 343, 345 (5th Cir.1977) (district court’s refusal to enter default was not abuse of discretion where government responded promptly to motion for default judgment).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David H. Johns
v.
Stephen W. Kaiser, Warden Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
96-7031.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Mar 14, 1997.
107 F.3d 880
Published

107 F.3d 880

97 CJ C.A.R. 404

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

David H. JOHNS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Stephen W. KAISER, Warden; Attorney General of the State of
Oklahoma, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 96-7031.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

March 14, 1997.

1

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[*]

2

Before BRORBY and KELLY, Circuit Judges, and CAUTHRON,[**] District Judge.

3

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

4

Petitioner appeals the district court's denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) motion seeking relief from that court's 1990 judgment denying him federal habeas relief, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, from his Oklahoma convictions for felony murder and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. This court dismissed the appeal from the 1990 denial of habeas relief because petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right. Petitioner may not use Rule 60(b) to circumvent rules against abuse of the writ. Petitioner fails to allege or prove any circumstances that would justify the filing of a successive writ or that would require reconsideration of his original grounds for relief. Because we review the district court's denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief for an abuse of discretion, Metz v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 39 F.3d 1482, 1491 (10th Cir.1994), we affirm.

5

Petitioner contends that intervening changes in the law, retroactively applicable to his case, require reconsideration of his § 2254 claims. Aside from the fact that between his first and second petitions, there have been no intervening changes in the law, even if there have been, ordinarily new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applied on collateral review. See generally Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 305-10 (1989).

6

Petitioner is not entitled to Rule 60(b)(6) relief on his claims both because relief based upon post-judgment changes in the law is ordinarily not available under Rule 60(b)(6), see Johnston v. Cigna Corp., 14 F.3d 486, 497 (10th Cir.1993), and because petitioner's purported new authority is not relevant.

7

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma is, therefore, AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

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

**

Honorable Robin J. Cauthron, District Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation