Jason Shantel Gossett v. Don Helphinstine

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
JASON SHANTEL GOSSETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DON HELPHINSTINE; BEN FLOWERS;
BILL BASHEAR; DARREN ROGERS;
PHIL HURST; BRETT MORTON;
ACTING MURRAY COUNTY
COMMISSIONER,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 22-7001
(D.C. No. 6:21-CV-00134-RAW-SPS)
(E.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges.**
_________________________________
Jason Gossett, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal
various district court orders that (1) dismissed this civil action, and (2) denied relief
under Rule 60(b). His notice of appeal was only timely with respect to the Rule
60(b) ruling, and our review is therefore limited to that ruling. Because Gossett has
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 24, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 22-7001 Document: 010110729101 Date Filed: 08/24/2022 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by denying Rule 60(b)
relief, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Gossett filed this civil action against several government officials under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief for alleged constitutional violations related to his arrest,
criminal conviction, and conditions of confinement. The district court issued an
opinion and order in which it dismissed some of Gossett’s claims for failing to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted, explained how the remaining claims
needed to be pleaded to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and ordered Gossett to file a second amended complaint within twenty-one days of
the entry of the opinion and order. The court warned Gossett that “[f]ailure to
comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action without further notice.”
The court subsequently extended the deadline for an additional twenty-one days,
again warning Gossett that the action would be dismissed if he did not comply with
the order to file a second amended complaint. Rather than filing a second amended
complaint, however, Gossett simply filed a motion in which he asserted that a second
amended complaint was unnecessary. The court therefore dismissed the action
without prejudice based on Gossett’s failure to comply with the court’s order. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Nasious v. Two Unknown BICE Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161
n.2, 1162 (10th Cir. 2007).
More than twenty-eight days later, Gossett filed a motion that the district court
construed as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment. The district court
held that Gossett had not shown he was entitled to relief under Rule 60(b), and the
Appellate Case: 22-7001 Document: 010110729101 Date Filed: 08/24/2022 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
court accordingly denied the motion. Gossett then filed a notice of appeal, in which
he stated he was appealing “any and or all opinions.”
Because Gossett did not file a notice of appeal or post-judgment motion within
twenty-eight days after the district court issued its order of dismissal, this court lacks
jurisdiction to review any challenges to that order. See Lebahn v. Owens, 813 F.3d
1300, 1304 (10th Cir. 2016). Gossett’s notice of appeal was timely only with respect
to the district court’s order denying Rule 60(b) relief, and our review is therefore
limited to that ruling. See id.
“We review the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of
discretion,” considering only the denial of Rule 60(b) relief and not the merits of the
underlying judgment. Servants of the Paraclete v. Doe, 204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th
Cir. 2000). On appeal, Gossett does not address the Rule 60(b) factors, nor does he
otherwise dispute the district court’s denial of relief under Rule 60(b). Moreover, we
have independently reviewed the record and pertinent cases, and we are persuaded
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gossett’s post-judgment
motion for relief from the judgment. See id. (explaining that Rule 60(b) relief is
extraordinary and should be granted only in extraordinary circumstances).
The district court’s judgment is accordingly affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 22-7001 Document: 010110729101 Date Filed: 08/24/2022 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --