Melvin Leroy Tyler v. Mavis Thompson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: August 3, 2000
• Docket: 00-1382
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 00-1382 ___________

Melvin Leroy Tyler; Anthony Miner, * * Appellants, * * v. * * Mavis T. Thompson, Clerk, 22nd * Circuit Court, St. Louis; Joan Moriarty, * Judge, Division 9, 22nd Circuit Court, * St. Louis; Timothy Wilson, Judge, * Division 19, 22nd Circuit Court, * Appeal from the United States St. Louis; Jane Geiler, Assistant Circuit * District Court for the Attorney; Jane Darst, Assistant Circuit * Eastern District of Missouri Attorney; Barbara Harmon; Laura * Harmon; Ralph Peterson; Mary * [UNPUBLISHED] Peterson; Chris Peterson; Nancy * Kennedy; Richard Callahan; Kevin * Crane; Gary McConnell; Susan Land; * Barbara Ham; Dora Schriro; Michael * Bowersox; John Lynch, Assistant * Attorney General, State of Missouri, * * Appellees. * ___________

Submitted: July 27, 2000 Filed: August 3, 2000 ___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmates Melvin Leroy Tyler and Anthony Miner appeal from the final judgment entered in the District Court1 for the Eastern District of Missouri denying their motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), wherein they asked the court to vacate its prior dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a number of defendants who allegedly either violated the terms of an injunction issued in a prior action, or prevented plaintiffs from getting fair criminal and postconviction proceedings. Having carefully reviewed the record and appellants’ submissions on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) (permitting relief from final judgment for “any other reason justifying relief”); Brooks v. Ferguson- Florissant Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 903, 904-05 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review; Rule 60(b)(6) movant must demonstrate exceptional circumstances prevented relief “through the usual channels”). We do not reach appellants’ constitutional challenge--which were not developed below--to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(g). See Womack v. City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, 193 F.3d 1028, 1032 (8th Cir. 1999) (declining to address arguments first advanced on appeal). We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

1 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2-