Jones v. Kansas, State of et al

Filing 54

ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion 47 for relief from judgment is treated as one under Rule 60(b) and denied. Plaintiff's motion 48 for leave to file an amended complaint is denied. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 03/19/14. (Mailed to pro se party Joseph Lee Jones by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JOSEPH LEE JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO.

12-3229-SAC

STATE OF KANSAS,
et al.,
Defendants.
O R D E R
On August 21, 2013, this court entered a Memorandum and
Order dismissing this action for failure to state a claim and as
frivolous.

This matter is now before the court upon plaintiff’s

Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 47) and Motion for Leave
to Amend Complaint (Doc. 48).

Having considered these post-

judgment motions, the court finds that plaintiff is entitled to
no relief and denies the motions.

BACKGROUND
In this action plaintiff mainly challenged the refusal of
prison officials to send four letters that he had addressed to
businesses and improperly designated as “legal mail” as well as
the withholding of these letters in connection with subsequent
disciplinary proceedings.

The court entered a screening order
1

finding that the original civil rights complaint was subject to
dismissal for several reasons including improper inclusion of
habeas

corpus

challenges

to

plaintiff’s

state

convictions,

failure to name proper defendants, failure to provide dates, and
no

clear

statement

participation
habeas

by

corpus

a

of

facts

person

claims

or

named

were

as

allegations
defendant.

dismissed.

With

of

personal

Plaintiff’s
respect

to

plaintiff’s conditions claims of interference with legal mail
and denial of court access, the court found that the complaint
was frivolous on its face and utterly failed to state facts or a
legal theory that would entitle Mr. Jones to relief under §
1983.

Plaintiff was given time to cure the deficiencies to his

conditions claims.
After entry of the screening order, Mr. Jones “filed 28
motions and other papers,” some beyond expiration of the court’s
deadline.
expired,

Then,
he

filed

two

months

his

after

First

the

Amended

response
Complaint

period
(Doc.

had
40).

Nonetheless, the court reviewed all of plaintiff’s filings.

In

his Amended Complaint, plaintiff sought millions of dollars in
punitive damages based on assertions “that his First Amendment
rights to court access, to ‘communicate with outside world,’ and
‘lawyer-client

privilege’

were

violated.”

He

also

sought

“compensatory damages” for his “losses of being able to opt-out
2

of class action lawsuit and sue in the state for civil penalties
for consumer protection violations.”

On August 21, 2013, the

court entered a Memorandum and Order to determine whether or not
plaintiff had complied with its screening order and to screen
the

First

Amended

Complaint.

The

court

concluded

that

the

Amended Complaint, like the original, failed to state a federal
constitutional claim “because plaintiff’s own allegations and
exhibits show that the letters in question were not ‘legal mail’
and fail to show that he was denied access to the courts.”
action

was

frivolous

dismissed
pursuant

for
to

failure
28

to

U.S.C.

state
§§

a

claim

and

1915A(a),(b)

The
as
and

1915(e)(2)(B).

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 47)
purports to seek relief under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

However, since this motion was filed more than

28 days after judgment, it is treated as a motion for relief
under Rule 60(b).

Relief under Rule 60(b) is “extraordinary and

may be granted only in exceptional circumstances.”

Allender v.

Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir. 2006); Bud
Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Co., 909 F.2d
1437, 1440 (10th Cir. 1990); Amoco Oil Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 231
3

F.3d 694, 697 (10th Cir. 2000).

Under Rule 60(b), a “litigant

shows exceptional circumstances by satisfying one or more of
Rule 60(b)’s six grounds for relief from judgment.”1

Van Skiver,

952 F.2d at 1244; Cashner, 98 F.3d AT 576-77.
Rule 60(b) is not a vehicle to reargue the merits of the
underlying

judgment

supporting

facts

plaintiff’s

or

which

earlier

to

advance

could

filings.

substitute for appeal.

new

have
Nor

arguments

been
is

it

or

included
to

be

present
in

used

the
as

a

Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d

1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000); Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98
F.3d 572, 576-77 (10th Cir. 1996); Wilkins v. Packerware Corp.,
238 FRD 256, 263 (D.Kan. 2006), aff’d 260 Fed.Appx. 98 (10th
Cir. 2008)(citing Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 101
F.3d 1324, 1332 (10th Cir. 1996)).

The party seeking relief

from a judgment bears the burden of demonstrating he satisfies
the prerequisites for such relief.

Van Skiver v. U.S., 952 F.2d

1

Rule 60(b) provides in pertinent part that the court may relieve
a party from a final judgment for the following reasons:
(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 under
Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . . misrepresentation, or other
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5)
the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated,
or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any
other reason that justifies relief.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).

4

1241,

1243–44

(10th

Cir.

1991),

cert.

denied,

506

U.S.

828

(1992).
Mr. Jones does not allege facts showing his entitlement to
relief

under

Instead,

in

any

of

his

the

grounds

motion

he

set

alleges

forth

in

Rule

60(b).

that

the

El

Dorado

Correctional Facility has a “new policy of e-filing” and “the
prison failed to e-file (his) Proof of Damages” incurred as a
result of Shawnee County Jail not returning his “four outgoing
legal letters.”

He claims that due to this “new e-file system

(he) was robbed of being heard.”

In addition, he alleges that

this court said he had not fully exhausted his administrative
remedies.2

He asks the court to grant this motion to allow him

“to address the failure to return those letters” until he left
the jail in April 2013.
Plaintiff was able to file, and this court considered, at
least 28 filings

before

its order

of dismissal was entered.

Thus, plaintiff’s suggestion that he was robbed of being heard
is

ludicrous.

Moreover,

Mr.

Jones

does

not

sufficiently

describe a single document that was not e-filed or was lost.
simply refers to one document as “Proof of Damages.”

2

He

The court

Plaintiff also suggests that prior to entry of the order of dismissal
herein, he “asked for a motion to leave to alter and amend so another ruling
is due.”
On the contrary, plaintiff’s numerous motions filed prior to the
entry of the court’s order of dismissal were determined in that order and no
motion was left pending.

5

notes that among his 28 filings, Mr. Jones managed to file two
“Affidavit(s) in Support of Damages” (Docs. 23, 24).

In any

event, lack of proof of damages was not a defect that plaintiff
was

required

contained

to

other

cure.3

Furthermore,

substantial

defects

plaintiff’s

that

he

was

complaint

specifically

required, but failed, to cure.
Plaintiff’s allegation that the court dismissed this action
for failure to exhaust is plainly incorrect.

The court briefly

mentioned that plaintiff’s habeas claims required exhaustion of
state

court

remedies,

but

those

claims

improperly raised in this civil action.
claims

were

dismissed

for

failure

to

were

dismissed

as

Plaintiff’s conditions
state

a

claim

and

as

frivolous.
Plaintiff’s disagreement with the findings and rulings of
the court, including his insistence that the letters in question
qualified as “legal mail”, and his rehashing of other arguments
fail

to

demonstrate

the

existence

of

any

extraordinary

circumstances that would justify a decision to alter or amend

3

The court found, among other defects, that plaintiff failed to allege a
physical injury and was barred from recovering damages for mental and
emotional injury; and that plaintiff failed to state facts showing that the
conduct of any defendant involved an evil motive so as to support a claim for
punitive damages.
Plaintiff does not allege that the document in question
showed his own physical injury or evil motive on the part of any defendant.
Instead, he indicates it contained proof that withholding his letters caused
him to lose money, a claim which this court rejected prior to judgment.

6

the judgment dismissing this action.4

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
The court has considered and denies plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 48).

In this motion,

Mr. Jones seeks to file an Amended Complaint “adding a party and
correcting deficiencies.”

This is not a proper motion in a

closed case.

Seymour v. Thornton, 79 F.3d 980, 987 (10th Cir.

1996)(“[O]nce

judgment

is

entered

the

filing

of

an

amended

complaint is not permissible until judgment is set aside or
vacated pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or 60(b).”); Strepka v.
Miller, 28 Fed.Appx. 823, 829 (10th Cir. 2001).

It is also a

deficient motion to amend because it does not have a complete
Amended Complaint attached as required.
IT

IS

THEREFORE

BY

THE

COURT

ORDERED

that

plaintiff’s

Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 47) is treated as one
under Rules 60(b) and denied; and that plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 48) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 19th day of March, 2014, at Topeka, Kansas.

4

The court notes that plaintiff was given ample opportunity and time to
name proper parties and correct deficiencies and reiterates that he managed
to file numerous responsive pleadings despite his new allegations that he was
moved around and suffered a single instance of failure to e-file.

7

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

8