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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-
