Crawford v. Social Rehabilitation Services of Wyandotte County, Kansas et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The plaintiff's "Notice of RE-Appeal" (Dk. 13) and response (Dk. 15) are denied as motions for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See attached for more details. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 10/30/2012. Mailed to pro se party: Ms. Brismaegi A. Crawford, 5480 Woodstock Street, Shawnee, KS 66218 by certified mail; Certified Tracking Number: 70111570000262656195 and regular mail.(bmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
BRISMAEGI A. CRAWFORD,
Plaintiff,
Vs.

No. 12-2479-SAC

SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION
SERVICES OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY,
KANSAS; PAUL GREEN; and BILL DOW,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The court filed on October 3, 2012, an order directing the
plaintiff to show cause why her filing entitled “Notice of RE-Appeal” (Dk. 13)
should not be stricken or denied for the reasons stated therein. (Dk. 14). A
judgment of dismissal was entered in this case on August 22, 2012, for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and on Eleventh
Amendment immunity grounds. (Dk. 9). The plaintiff filed her “Notice of REappeal” 40 days later which is outside the time periods for taking an appeal,
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), or for filing a motion for reconsideration pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Due to these passing time limits, the show cause
order explained that the court had allowed the plaintiff’s “Notice” to be filed
despite its non-compliance with the pleading requirements of D. Kan. Rule
5.1. (Dk. 14, p. 1). The show cause order then summarized the relief being
requested in plaintiff’s “Notice” and identified Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) as the

remaining procedural avenue for the plaintiff to pursue her arguments. The
order then directed:
The plaintiff’s filing fails to articulate relief under any of the limited
exceptions established in this rule. Thus, the court orders the plaintiff
to show cause in a written pleading that complies with D. Kan. Rule
5.1 why the “Notice of RE-Appeal” should not be denied summarily for
failure to state any exceptional circumstance warranting relief under
Rule 60(b).
(Dk. 14, p. 3).
The plaintiff mailed the court a signed letter that was dated
October 18, 2012. (Dk. 15). She apparently intends this letter to be her
response to the show cause order. Her response simply repeats the same
allegations that the court already discussed in its earlier orders. The plaintiff
does not explain her “Notice of RE-Appeal” to be anything more than an
attempt to have the court reconsider its dismissal of her action. Her
response also fails to address any grounds for the narrow and exceptional
relief allowed under Rule 60(b). It further fails to offer any new evidence or
authorities putting into question the court’s reasons for the earlier dismissal
of this action.
The court expects that the plaintiff will understand from these
orders that this court’s jurisdiction is limited. It does not sit as an appeals
court to the state court proceedings. Nor is it an administrative body that
fields complaints about state assistance programs, investigates the
complaints, and grants relief accordingly. To come within this court’s
jurisdiction, the plaintiff would need to plead an actionable constitutional
2

claim that was not subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity. She has not
done so. The court accepts the plaintiff’s response to the show cause order
and denies her all relief requested in that response and in her earlier
pleading entitled, “Notice of RE-Appeal.”
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff’s “Notice of REAppeal” (Dk. 13) and response (Dk. 15) are denied as motions for relief
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Dated this 30th day of October, 2012, Topeka, Kansas.

s/ Sam A. Crow
Sam A. Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge

3