Jones v. United States Copyright Office and Patents

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: The Clerk is directed to reopen this case for purposes of entering this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff's motions (Docs. 41 , 42 ) are denied. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 9/25/2024. Mailed to pro se party Joseph Lee Jones by regular mail. (jal)

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

CASE NO. 15-3098-JWL

UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT
OFFICE AND PATENTS,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND 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

1

dismissal of the complaint based upon Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the district court filing fee
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914.
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). The
Court entered an Order (Doc. 40) denying the motion on February 23, 2021. Now, over three
years later, Plaintiff has filed another Motion to Reopen (Doc. 41) and a motion (Doc. 42) titled a
“Motion for Relief of Judgment Seeking Mandamus and also Motion to Revisit Utility Patent
and Trademark protection for injunctive Relief upon review of materials published by Reuters
Westlaw . . ..”
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:
2

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).
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 for relief from judgment.
Plaintiff’s motion is largely incomprehensible, but appears to seek 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 more than eight 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 the Clerk is directed to reopen this case for
purposes of entering this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (Docs. 41, 42) are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to close this case.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated September 25, 2024, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4