discussing the public’s strong interest in protecting the finality of judgments especially when the court has previously denied relief from judgment
How later courts described this case
- discussing the public’s strong interest in protecting the finality of judgments especially when the court has previously denied relief from judgment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JOSEPH LEE JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 20-3072-SAC
GOOGLE LLC, INC.,
Defendant.
O R D E R
This case is before the court upon plaintiff’s motion to alter
or amend judgment. Doc. No. 93. The document is also labelled
“Notice of Delayed Filing” and “Notice of appeal.” Plaintiff has
filed other motions to alter or amend judgment and other appeals
before in this case. E.g., Doc. Nos. 48, 52, 65, 75 and 82.
Courts are reluctant to grant relief in this situation. See
Nelson v. City of Albuquerque, 921 F.3d 925, 929 (10th Cir.
2019)(discussing the public’s strong interest in protecting the
finality of judgments especially when the court has previously
denied relief from judgment). Plaintiff has not timely sought
relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e); such a motion must be filed within
28 days of entry of judgment. So, the court looks to Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(b) which permits a court to relieve a party from a final
judgment for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in
time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud
... misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has
been satisfied, released, or discharged ...; or (6) any
other reason that justifies relief.
Relief under Rule 60(b) is “extraordinary and may only be granted
in exceptional circumstances.” Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill
Hodges Trucking Co., 909 F.2d 1437, 1440 (10th Cir. 1990) (citation
omitted). A Rule 60(b) motion may not be used to revisit issues
already addressed or to advance new arguments or supporting facts
which were otherwise available earlier. Wilson v. Reid, 2020 WL
7334092 *1 (10th Cir. 12/14/2020).
Plaintiff has not properly alleged grounds for relief which
fall in the categories listed in Rule 60(b). He makes a conclusory
claim that the court misapprehended the facts, but such an argument
does not suffice to allege “mistake” or “inadvertence.” Id. at
*2. He also refers to facts or claims which occurred during the
litigation, but does not explain how this shows that the court’s
prior rulings are in error or why he could not have raised these
matters prior to judgment. Plaintiff indicates that he may have a
freedom of religion claim and a patent claim, but does not describe
facts showing that these are plausible contentions, or that earlier
in this litigation he properly presented them to the court or was
prevented from doing so. He also asserts that the court erred in
denying a motion for default judgment. But, this is a matter which
was available for appeal previously in this case.
For the above-stated reasons, the court shall deny
plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment. Doc. No. 93.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 4th day of March 2021, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/Sam A. Crow__________________________
U.S. District Senior Judge