Adams v. Matevousian

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
ERIC ADAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MATEVOUSIAN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 20-1273
(D.C. No. 1:19-CV-01226-LTB-GPG)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*

_________________________________
Before MATHESON, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Eric Adams, appearing pro se,
1
appeals the district court’s minute order striking
the motions he filed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Mr. Adams, a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary – ADMAX in Florence,
Colorado, applied for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He alleged the Bureau of
Prisons violated the Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause by

*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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.
1
Because Mr. Adams is pro se, we construe his filings liberally, but we do not
act as his advocate. Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

October 15, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-1273 Document: 010110423397 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 Page: 1

2

incarcerating him in Colorado rather than New York or Pennsylvania, both of which are
closer to his family. This is his third appeal to this court in this case.
First, the district court dismissed Mr. Adams’s § 2241 application for lack of
jurisdiction. It also denied his motions under Rules 59(e) and 60(a) and for a writ of
mandamus. The court said it would not consider any further motions for reconsideration.
We affirmed. Adams v. Matevousian, 787 F. App’x 541 (10th Cir. 2019)
(unpublished). Because § 2241 applications challenge the execution of a sentence rather
than conditions of confinement, see Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1034-37
(10th Cir. 2012), we held Mr. Adams cannot use § 2241 to challenge where he is housed.
Adams, 787 F. App’x at 541.
Second, after his first appeal, Mr. Adams moved in district court for relief under
Rule 60(b)(1), alleging the court had mistakenly denied his § 2241 application. The court
denied the motion and warned that the court clerk would be directed to strike any further
filings.
We affirmed. Adams v. Matevousian, 803 F. App’x 224 (10th Cir. 2020)
(unpublished). We said Mr. Adams’s “motion and this appeal from the denial thereof are
patently frivolous” for the reasons stated in our decision in the first appeal. Id. at 225.
Third, the instant appeal arises from the district court’s minute order striking Mr.
Adams’s Rule 59(e) and 60(b)(1) motions, which he filed after his second appeal. We
Appellate Case: 20-1273 Document: 010110423397 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 Page: 2

3

review for abuse of discretion. See Neely v. Ortiz, 241 F. App’x 474, 477 (10th Cir.
2007) (unpublished) (“[W]e review the order to strike for abuse of discretion.”).
2

After entering its dismissal order, the district court considered Mr. Adams’s
motions to reconsider. After his first appeal, it considered his motion under Rule
60(b)(1). After we affirmed in the second appeal, Mr. Adams tried yet again for
reconsideration, even though the district court and this court had twice determined his
claim is not cognizable under § 2241, and even though the district court warned that
additional filings would be stricken. Under these circumstances, Mr. Adams cannot show
the district court abused its discretion.
We affirm the district court’s minute order. Because Mr. Adams has failed to
show the “existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in
support of the issues raised,” Buchheit v. Green, 705 F.3d 1157, 1161 (10th Cir.
2012) (quoting Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005)),
we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge

2
Cited for persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).

Appellate Case: 20-1273 Document: 010110423397 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 Page: 3