The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
AUGUST WAKAT;
POEBOY FLEMING AUTO
SALVAGE, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 25-CV-00268-SEH-CDL
v.
CITY OF TULSA;
FAIR OAKS TOWNSHIP;
JOE ROBSON, individually and as
agent of Fair Oaks, LLC;
HENRY WINN;
LAMAR ADVERTISING
COMPANY;
ANN LANDRITH TRUST;
ROBERT RAINBOLT;
JEREMY BILLINGSLY;
PLAINVIEW SALVAGE INC.;
R. LAWSON VAUGHN, in his
official capacity as City Attorney
for the City of Tulsa;
JOHN DOES 9–50, unknown
persons acting in concert under
the moniker “Cowboy Mafia”;
AMANDA ALSIP, in her official
capacity as Wagoner County Land
Records Clerk,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Petitioner August Wakat’s Petition for Writ of
Mandamus and Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(a) and (b). [ECF No. 1].
Wakat seeks a writ, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, compelling Defendants
Amanda Alsip, R. Lawson Vaughn, and Joe Robson “to correct a clerical and
jurisdictional error in the public land records regarding the annexation of
Plaintiff’s property and the alleged incorporation into the Township of Fair
Oaks.” [Id. at 1–2]. He further requests an Order “directing the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in Case No. 4:24-cv-564
to enforce correction of the record in accordance with this Court’s findings,”
and “relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and (b).” [Id. at 2].
Title 28, section 1361 provides “[t]he district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or
employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed
to the plaintiff.” Thus, section 1361 “applies only if a plaintiff seeks to compel
an officer or employee of the United States or its agents to act.” Adkins v.
Koduri, No. 21-3134, 2021 WL 5122277, at *1 (10th Cir. Nov. 4, 2021)
(unpublished).1 “The statute does not allow relief against state officials or
state agencies.” Mathieu v. Brown, 780 F. App’x 665, 666 (10th Cir. 2019)
(citation omitted). Nor does § 1361 provide a basis for subject matter
jurisdiction against private persons or entities. Meadows v. Explorer Pipeline
Co., No. 13-CV-568-GKF-TLW, 2014 WL 1365039, at *7 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 7,
1 “Unpublished decisions are not precedential, but may be cited for their
persuasive value.” 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
2014); Watts v. United States, No. 95-CV-061-D, 1996 WL 149326, at *1 (D.
Wyo. Jan. 19, 1996) (collecting cases).
Wakat asserts that Aslip is the Wagoner County Land Records Clerk,
Vaughn is the attorney for the City of Tulsa, and Robson is the agent of Fair
Oaks, LLC. [ECF No. 1 at 2–3]. He does not allege that they are officers,
employees, or agents of the United States. Rather, it appears that Wakat is
suing Aslip and Vaughn in their official state and local capacities and suing
Robson as an agent of a private entity. Therefore, § 1361 does not permit
relief. Mathieu, 780 F. App’x at 666; Meadows, 2014 WL 1365039, at *7.
Consequently, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and Wakat’s
petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed without prejudice.
Wakat further seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a)
and (b), “to modify or vacate any findings, orders, or judgments that relied
upon the erroneous annexation or signage encumbrance.” [ECF No. 1 at 6].
Rule 60(a) permits a court to “correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising
from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or
other part of the record.” The Rule “allows a court to correct ‘what is
erroneous because the thing spoke, written or recorded is not what the person
intended to speak, write or record.’” Martinez v. Dart Trans, Inc., 547 F.
Supp. 3d 1140, 1149 (D.N.M. 2021) (quoting Allied Materials Corp. v.
Superior Prods. Co., Inc., 620 F.2d 224, 226 (10th Cir. 1980)). It “may not be
used to clarify a judgment because the original was incorrect,” nor “change
the Court’s deliberate action.” Id. (quotations omitted). Further, the Rule
provides, “after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while
it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court’s
leave.”
Rule 60(b) allows a court to “relieve a party or its legal representative
from a final judgment” based on: (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; (3)
fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) a void
judgment; (5) a judgment that is satisfied, released, or discharged, based on
an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or is no longer
equitable when applied prospectively; or (6) any other reason that justifies
relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). This relief should only be granted in exceptional
circumstances. Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir.
2000) (internal quotations omitted).
Here, Wakat requests that this Court order another district court to
correct its judgment. However, he cites no authority, and the Court is aware
of none, that would allow this Court to order correction of another district
court’s judgment. In essence, Wakat seeks substantive review of the
judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Northern
District Oklahoma Case No. 4:24-cv-564. Rule 60 does not provide him with
any avenue for relief in this matter.
Wakat also attempts to assert a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 19838
for violation of his constitutional rights. [ECF No. 1 at 4, 6]. However, the
filing is styled as a “Petition for Writ of Mandamus” and seeks an Order of
this Court. “A petition does not constitute a pleading under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.” Robinson v. United States, No. 138-CV-02269-MSK-CBS,
2014 WL 2536828, at *7 n.3 (D. Colo. June 5, 2014). Wakat is obligated to
plead his claims pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1183 (4th
ed. June 2024 update).
THEREFORE, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus [ECF No. 1] is
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before August 25, 2025, Plaintiff
shall file a Complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If Plaintiff fails to do so, he is advised that
this case may be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of August, 2025.
San HO
Sara E. Hill Me
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE