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.77] In Its Entirety” (Doc. No. 84). 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).
On July 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Disqualify (Doc. No. 21), seeking to
have certain of the defendants’ counsel disqualified and removed from the case. Following
briefing, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request. See Order of Mar. 31, 2025 (Doc. No. 48).
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 Relief (Doc. No. 63) from the denial of
disqualification pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief. See Order of Feb. 26, 2026 (the “Rule 60(b)(3)
Order”) (Doc. No. 77).
On April 1, 2025, 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 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), appeal docketed, No. 25-6055 (10th
Cir. Apr. 14, 2025). The Court entered Judgment dismissing this matter without prejudice
the following day. See J. (Doc. No. 51).
II. Plaintiff’s Objection
In her Objection, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in denying her request for
disqualification of Defendants’ counsel both initially and when ruling on her Rule 60(b)(3)
motion. See Pl.’s Obj. at 1-4.
Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Objection seeks reconsideration of the Rule 60(b)(3)
Order, which itself denied reconsideration of the denial of disqualification of Defendants’
counsel, 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 support of her Objection, Plaintiff primarily repeats her previous arguments
regarding the alleged misconduct of Defendants’ counsel and the alleged bias of the Court’s
rulings. See Pl.’s Obj. at 2-4; see also Pl.’s Mot. Relief at 2-12; Pl.’s Mot. to Disqualify at
2-4. “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 reurging of disqualification arguments, with
“supporting facts [that] were available” when she filed the Rule 60(b)(3) motion, does not
show that it would “offend[] justice to deny” relief or any “exceptional circumstances”
warranting relief. Id.; Davis, 507 F.3d at 1248 (internal quotation marks omitted).
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. 84) 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