Reynolds (ID 104857) v. Wright

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment (Doc. 22 ) is denied. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 10/05/20. Mailed to pro se party Teill S. Reynolds by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
TEILL S. REYNOLDS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 14-3228-SAC

SHANE WRIGHT,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter, a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
by a prisoner in state custody, comes before the court on plaintiff’s
motion for relief from judgment. For the reasons that follow, the court
denies the motion.
Background
Plaintiff filed this action on December 12, 2014, against a
Kansas

City,

Kansas,

police

officer

alleging

false

arrest/imprisonment, illegal search and seizure, and malicious
prosecution. The court dismissed this matter on December 1, 2015, and
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision
on June 8, 2016. Reynolds v. Wright, 647 Fed. Appx. 838, 2016 WL 2865738
(10th Cir. May 17, 2016).
On August 4, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this case;
the court denied that motion on the following day. On August 13, 2020,
plaintiff filed the present motion for relief from judgment, alleging
that the decision of the Kansas Court of Tax Appeals (KCOTA) is void.
Analysis
Plaintiff seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(4). Rule 60(b)(4) allows a court to relieve a party from a final

judgment if “the judgment is void.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). A motion
under this subsection must be brought “within a reasonable time.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). “A judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) ‘only
in the rare instance where [the] judgment is premised either on a
certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process
that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.’”
Johnson v. Spencer, 950 F.3d 680, 694 (10th Cir. 2020)(quoting United
Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270 (2010)).
Having considered the record, the Court concludes plaintiff is
not entitled to relief. His claim against the KCOTA is unrelated to
his claims against the Kansas police officer who is the sole defendant
in this action, and this court has no jurisdiction under Rule 60(b)
to consider a decision by the KCOTA, a state court. It appears this
motion is an attempt to obtain review of a related argument that has
been considered, and rejected, by the Kansas Court of Appeals. See
Reynolds v. Kansas City, 440 P.3d 626 (Table), 2019 WL 2064497, at
*4 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019)(declining to consider plaintiff’s claims
against the Kansas Department of Revenue and the KCOTA due to his
failure to include citations to the record).
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED plaintiff’s motion for
relief from judgment (Doc. 22) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 5th day of October, 2020, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judg