# Jones v. Google LLC, Inc.

> District Court, D. Kansas · April 16, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10172458

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Kansas
- **Decided:** April 16, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10172458

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing standards for Rule 60(b)(6) relief from judgment

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JOSEPH LEE JONES,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 18-4032-SAC-GEB

GOOGLE LLC, INC.,

Defendant.

O R D E R
This case is before the court upon what plaintiff has titled
an “amended complaint” (Doc. No. 30) and “production of documents
for discovery” (Doc. No. 31). This case has been closed since
mid-2018. Plaintiff may not file an amended complaint as of
course. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). Nor may plaintiff amend the
complaint in a closed case without first reopening the case. See
Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2nd Cir. 2008);
Weiss v. Cooley, 230 F.3d 1027, 2014 (7th Cir. 2000).
If the court treated the “amended complaint” as a motion to
amend and if such a motion could be considered in a closed case,
the court would still deny the motion for the following reasons.
First, the proposed complaint, which is difficult to decipher,
fails to state a plausible claim for relief and is therefore
futile. The court has previously explained (see Doc. No. 20) that
plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act. The amended complaint seeks to add constitutional
claims, but does not include allegations showing that defendants
acted under any state governmental authority which would be
necessary to raise a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). If the court treated the “amended

complaint” as a motion for relief from judgment, the court would
deny the motion because plaintiff has not persuasively presented
grounds for such extraordinary relief. See Allender v. Raytheon
Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir. 2006)(discussing
standards for Rule 60(b)(6) relief from judgment).
The court shall strike the material titled “production of
documents for discovery” (Doc. No. 31). This material appears to
be improperly filed with the court. See D.Kan.R. 26.3(a). If the
court considered the materials as some kind of support for the
proposed amended complaint, the court would still find that the
complaint fails to state a claim and is improperly presented to
court in a closed case.

In conclusion, the amended complaint, treated as a motion to
amend the complaint, is denied and the production of discovery is
ordered stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 16th day of April 2020, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/Sam A. Crow_____________
U.S. District Senior Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10172458. Public record. Not legal advice.