The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARTINA O. OLUPITAN, MHA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-349-G
)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. )
THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE )
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Now before the Court Plaintiff Martina O. Olupitan, MHA’s “Objection to the
Court’s Order [Dkt.78]” (Doc. No. 82). Defendants1 have responded (Doc. No. 100) and
Plaintiff has replied (Doc. No. 103).
I. Background
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, commenced this action in April 2024, bringing federal
and state-law claims against nine defendants. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1). Defendants moved
to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. See Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. No. 25).
While Defendants’ motion to dismiss was pending, Plaintiff filed a Motion (Doc.
No. 38) seeking leave to use the Court’s Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) system as a pro se
filer. The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion. See Order of Jan. 21, 2025 (Doc. No. 40).
1 Defendants are: State of Oklahoma ex rel. The Board of Regents of the University of
Oklahoma; Michael J. Smith, PharmD; Gary Raskob, PhD; Valerie Williams, PhD; Laura
Stuemky, MD; Ashley Cheyney, PhD; Andrei Belousov, PhD; Katherine O’Neal, PharmD;
and Lori Klimkowski.
Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 46), asking the Court to
reconsider its disposition. The Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration, finding that
the denial of ECF permissions “reflect[ed] no clear error or manifest injustice.” Olupitan
v. Okla. ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., No. CIV 24-349-G, 2025 WL 980949, at
*7 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 1, 2025). In the same Order, the Court granted Defendants’ motion
to dismiss as to Plaintiff’s federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s state-law claims. See id.
On April 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief (Doc. No. 50), challenging the
Court’s denial of the Motion for Reconsideration. The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for
Relief, holding that Plaintiff had failed to show an entitlement to relief under Rule 60(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Order of Feb. 26, 2026 (“ECF Order”) (Doc.
No. 78).
II. Plaintiff’s Objection
In her Objection, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in denying her request for ECF
Access both initially and in ruling on her later motions. See Pl.’s Obj. at 1-4.
Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Objection seeks reconsideration of the ECF Order
pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “Rule 60(b) allows a court
to ‘relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding,’
for certain enumerated reasons.” Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 145 F.4th
1279, 1282 (10th Cir. 2025) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
As relevant here, the Rule prescribes: “On motion and just terms, the court may
relieve a party . . . from a final . . . order for” “any . . . reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is “difficult to attain,” “extraordinary,” and
“may only be granted in exceptional circumstances.” Davis v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 507
F.3d 1246, 1248 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Cashner v.
Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 580 (10th Cir. 1996) (explaining that relief under Rule
60(b)(6) is appropriate “when circumstances are so unusual or compelling that
extraordinary relief is warranted” “or when it offends justice to deny such relief” (internal
quotation marks omitted)); Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th
Cir. 2000) (“A Rule 60(b) motion is not intended to be a substitute for a direct appeal.”).
In this latest challenge, Plaintiff largely repeats her previous arguments regarding
the alleged prejudice suffered from a lack of ECF access and the alleged bias underlying
the Court’s ruling. Compare Pl.’s Obj. at 2-4, with Pl.’s Mot. Reconsideration at 1-4, and
Pl.’s Mot. Relief at 2-6. “Absent extraordinary circumstances,” however, the basis for a
successive Rule 60(b) motion “must not have been available at the time the first motion
was filed.” Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. Plaintiff’s reurged arguments,
“supporting facts [that] were available” when she filed the Rule 60(b)(3) motion, and broad
assertions that the Court erred in the ECF Order do not establish that it would “offend[]
justice to deny” relief or present any “exceptional circumstances” warranting relief. Id.;
Davis, 507 F.3d at 1248 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Pl.’s Obj. at 2, 3.
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for relief under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. No. 82) is
OVERRULED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to supplement the appellate record in accordance with
Tenth Circuit Rule 3.2(B).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of August, 2026.
United States District Judge