Jones v. United States Copyright Office and Patents

Filing 40

ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 39 ) is denied. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 02/23/21. Mailed to pro se party Joseph Lee Jones by regular mail. (smnd)

Case 5:15-cv-03098-SAC-DJW Document 40 Filed 02/23/21 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JOSEPH LEE JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 15-3098-SAC

UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT
OFFICE AND PATENTS,
Defendant.

ORDER
Plaintiff initiated this action seeking mandamus relief on allegations related to his
inability to obtain copyright and patent forms for submitting his published research on artificial
intelligence, and the lack of any response by the United States Copyright Office to Plaintiff’s
submissions. Plaintiff subsequently expanded his allegations to include his inability to obtain or
file forms to patent or trademark a “Fractal.”
In an order dated January 26, 2016, the Court examined Plaintiff’s litigation history in the
District of Kansas and found Plaintiff subject to the “3-strike” provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),
which required Plaintiff to pay the full $400.00 district court filing fee in the instant action
absent a showing that Plaintiff is under an imminent danger of serious physical harm if he is not
allowed to proceed on the claims in his complaint. Finding nothing in Plaintiff’s allegations to
suggest such a showing could be made in this case, the Court denied Plaintiff leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and directed Plaintiff to submit the $400.00 district court filing fee to avoid
dismissal of the complaint based upon Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the district court filing fee
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914.
1

Case 5:15-cv-03098-SAC-DJW Document 40 Filed 02/23/21 Page 2 of 3

On February 9, 2016, the Court liberally construed Plaintiff’s “Motion for Relief of
Judgment” of that “3-strike” order as seeking reconsideration of the non-dispositive order
entered on January 26, 2016. The Court noted that Plaintiff had not challenged the Court’s
finding that Plaintiff was a prisoner as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h) when he initiated the
instant action, and that Plaintiff’s litigation history in this Court includes three or more cases
Plaintiff filed as a prisoner that are “strikes” within the meaning of § 1915(g). Finding nothing
in Plaintiff’s motion satisfied any criteria for reconsideration of a non-dispositive order, the
Court denied the motion and granted Plaintiff a limited extension of time to submit the $400.00
district court filing fee. Because Plaintiff did not submit the required payment, the Court
dismissed this action on February 24, 2016. (Doc. 32.) Plaintiff appealed, and his appeal was
dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Doc. 37.)
On February 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment (Doc. 39).
Plaintiff’s motion is treated as a motion filed under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, seeking relief from judgment entered in this matter. See Weitz v. Lovelace Health
System Inc., 214 F.3d 1175, 1178 (10th Cir. 2000). Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part that:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding 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 (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 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).
2

Case 5:15-cv-03098-SAC-DJW Document 40 Filed 02/23/21 Page 3 of 3

A Rule 60(b) motion provides extraordinary relief which “may only be granted in
exceptional circumstances.” Amoco Oil Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
231 F.3d 694, 697 (10th Cir. 2000). The decision to grant such relief “is extraordinary and may
only be granted in exceptional circumstances.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005,
1009 (10th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks omitted).
Having reviewed the record, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to for relief from
judgment. Plaintiff seeks the relief he initially sought in this action and realleges his original
claims seeking copyright and patent forms.

Plaintiff alleges no grounds for relief under

Rule 60(b) and filed this motion five years after his case was closed. The Court finds Plaintiff
has failed to show good cause or “exceptional circumstances” warranting relief under Rule 60(b).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment
(Doc. 39) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated February 23, 2021, at Topeka, Kansas.

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

3