Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

112 F.3d 514

Docket No. 96-2955.

Tivis v. Schriro

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted April 7, 1997. Filed April 24, 1997.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1997-04-07

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 1999 · most notably Hutchins v. District of Columbia (1999), Nunez v. City of San Diego (1997)

27 federal appellate ·

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Sanders v. Clemco Industries · Robinson v. Armontrout

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1997-04-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well.

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Vance E. Tivis, a Missouri inmate, appeals the district court's1 denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion seeking relief from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. As Tivis has not alleged or demonstrated "exceptional circumstances" warranting extraordinary relief, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tivis's Rule 60(b) motion. See Robinson v. Armontrout, 8 F.3d 6, 7 (8th Cir.1993) (standard of review; Rule 60(b) factors warranting relief); Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169 (8th Cir.1988) (appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) motion does not raise underlying judgment for review).

¶2

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri

/112/f3d/514 · .json · Public domain