Matson v. Kansas, State of et al

Filing 255

ORDER dismissing 252 Motion for Protective Order; dismissing 253 Amended Motion for Protective Order. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge K. Gary Sebelius on 6/30/2017. Mailed to pro se party plaintiff Mike D. Matson by regular mail.(wh)

Download PDF
6/30/2017IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS MIKE D. MATSON, Plaintiff, v. JOEL HRABE, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 11-3192-KHV ORDER This matter comes before the court upon plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 252) and Amended Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 253). For the following reasons, these motions are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action against State of Kansas, the Kansas Department of Corrections and several individual defendants in 2011. He alleged, inter alia, that he had been illegally transferred within the Norton Correctional Facility (“NCF”) for retaliatory reasons. On January 23, 2014, Judge Richard D. Rogers granted summary judgment against plaintiff’s claims. This decision was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 22, 2015. On June 9, 2017, plaintiff filed his motion for protective order. In this motion, plaintiff, who is now incarcerated at El Dorado Correctional Facility, sought an order enjoining the defendants from transferring him back to NCF. On June 12, 2017, plaintiff filed his amended motion for protective order. In this motion, plaintiff sought similar relief and pointed to a newspaper article as support for his motion. This case has been closed since 2015. The facts warranting the original summary judgment have not changed, and plaintiff’s current motions give the court no basis to reopen the case or to modify its outcome. There is no case or controversy before the court. New claims cannot properly be litigated in a post-judgment motion.1 Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s motions.2 Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 252) and Amended Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 253) are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 30th day of June, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas. s/ K. Gary Sebelius K. Gary Sebelius U.S. Magistrate Judge 1 2 Kinnell v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, No. 98-3112-SAC, 2009 WL 902362, at *2 (D.Kan. March 31, 2009). Wedel v. Centera Bank, No. 10-1069-CM, 2010 WL 3075340, at *1 (D.Kan. Aug. 4, 2010). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?