McEachern v. Corrections, ME

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: February 7, 1996
• Docket: 95-1512
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

February 7, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________



        No. 95-1512



                                RICHARD A. MCEACHERN,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                            CORRECTIONS, ME COMMN, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Richard A. McEachern on brief pro se.
            ____________________

            Andrew Ketterer,  Attorney General, and  Christopher C.  Leighton,
            _______________                          ________________________

        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.


____________________


____________________


-2-



Per  Curiam.     On  September  2,  1992,   Richard
                      ___________



            McEachern, a  Maine state  prisoner, filed a  pro se  federal
                                                          ___ __



            civil rights action against Donald Allen, Commissioner of the



            Maine Department of Corrections, and Martin Magnusson, Warden



            of the Maine  State Prison.1  The  parties eventually reached
                                       1



            an  out-of-court settlement  agreement under  which McEachern



            agreed  to  dismiss the  pending  lawsuit in  exchange  for a



            transfer to a prison  in New Jersey.2  At the time, McEachern
                                                2



            was  housed at  Maine's  highest security  prison, the  Maine



            Correctional Institution  in Warren (MCI-Warren).   On  March



            25, 1994, the  parties filed a stipulation of  dismissal with



            prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii).



                      Following   the   dismissal,  McEachern   was  duly



            transferred to a  New Jersey  prison.  On  February 3,  1995,



            however, McEachern  filed a motion and  affidavit pursuant to



            Fed.  R. Civ. P. 60(b)  to void the  settlement agreement and



            reinstate  his lawsuit on the ground that he had been coerced



            into  settling  his  case  by  the  "inhumane  and  punitive"


____________________



               1As amended, the complaint also names Deputy Warden Arthur
               1

            Kiskila as a defendant.



               2The agreement  also provided that McEachern could request
               2

            the Maine Department  of Corrections  to provide  him with  a

            Pine Tree Legal Assistance attorney should he need  access to

            Maine legal  materials in connection with  any future actions

            in Maine courts.  



                                         -2-
                                         -2-



environment at MCI-Warren.3  The motion  was denied, and this
                                      3



            appeal followed.



                      McEachern argues that his Rule 60(b) motion  should



            have  been allowed because it  was filed within  one year and



            set  forth  extraordinary  circumstances   warranting  relief



            pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.  60(b)(6).  We disagree.  A party



            seeking relief under any  provision of Rule 60(b) must  do so



            within  a "reasonable  time."4   Fed. R.  Civ. P.  60(b); see
                                         4                            ___



            also  Planet Corp. v. Sullivan,  702 F.2d 123,  126 (7th Cir.
            ____  ____________    ________



            1983)  (explaining that  what  constitutes a  reasonable time



            depends  on the facts of each case, taking into consideration



            the interest in finality, the reason for delay, the practical



            ability to  learn earlier  of  the grounds  relied upon,  and



            prejudice to other parties).   McEachern failed to adequately



            explain why, after being transferred to New Jersey, he waited


____________________


3McEachern  also alleged,  as  an  additional  ground  for
               3

            reopening  the  dismissed  suit,  that  defendants failed  to

            comply with their agreement  to provide him with a  Pine Tree

            Legal  Assistance attorney.   McEachern  does not  renew this

            argument on appeal, and we deem the issue waived.  



               4Since McEachern filed his  motion within one year, we  do
               4

            not  need  to  decide  which   provision  of  Rule  60(b)  is

            applicable.   We note, however, that to the extent the motion

            is grounded  on alleged misconduct  of an  adverse party,  it

            properly should have been brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

            60(b)(3).  



                                         -3-
                                         -3-



over  ten months  before seeking  relief based  on coercion.5
                                                                        5



            We think this delay was unreasonable.



                      We add that  McEachern did not claim  that the ill-



            treatment he allegedly received at MCI-Warren was directed at



            forcing him to settle his  lawsuit.  Moreover, the conditions



            of confinement  he described in  meaningful detail--including



            the  number of hours spent  in his cell,  the restrictions on



            activities, the requirement that he wear prison clothing, the



            prohibition on  contact visits, and  the lack of  a canteen--



            fall within  constitutional limits.   Cf. Rhodes  v. Chapman,
                                                  ___ ______     _______



            452 U.S.  337, 347 (1981) (observing  that restrictive, harsh



            conditions are  part of  the penalty that  criminal offenders



            pay  for   their  offense   against  society).     Under  the



            circumstances,  we cannot  say  that the  district court  was



            required to hold a  hearing or that it abused  its discretion



            in denying the requested relief.  See Hoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d
                                              ___ _____    _____



            1, 3  (1st  Cir. 1995)  (stating that  district courts  enjoy



            broad discretion  in deciding motions under Rule 60(b) and we



            review such ruling only for abuse of that discretion).



                      Affirmed.
                      _________


____________________



               5Although McEachern  vaguely alludes, in his affidavit, to
               5

            "lingering  psychological damage"  allegedly  caused  by  his

            treatment at  MCI-Warren, his  affidavit reveals that  he had

            been  actively litigating other matters since his transfer to

            New Jersey.   



                                         -4-
                                         -4-