Dartez (ID 87393) v. Peters et al

Filing 605

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 589 Motion to Deposit Funds. See order for details. Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 3/25/22. (msb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

SAMUEL LEE DARTEZ, II,
Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No. 15-CV-03255-EFM

RICK PETERS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is a motion by the Kansas Highway Patrol (“KHP”) Defendants1 seeking
leave to deposit the monetary judgment against them into the registry of the Court. KHP
Defendants rely on Fed. R. Civ. P. 67 for this motion. Plaintiff objects on several grounds, one of
which is his belief that Rule 67 is inapplicable to the circumstances currently before the Court.
The Court agrees, and therefore denies KHP Defendants’ Motion to Deposit Monetary Judgment
Into Court (Doc. 589).

1

These are Defendants Rick Peters, Alex Taylor, Jason Bailey, Christopher Beas, Daniel DiLoreto,
Christopher Mai, Colby Markham, David Ruble, Brian Hedgecock, Herman Jones, Perry Frey, Christopher Bowling,
Robert Keener, Jason Devore, and Robert Ware.

I.

Factual and Procedural Background

On September 21, 2021, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against the
KHP Defendants in the amount of $60,000 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs allowed by
law. This was pursuant to KHP Defendants’ Offer of Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, which
Plaintiff accepted. The attorneys’ fees and costs in this case are the subject of other motions
pending before this Court and are thus yet undetermined.
Defense counsel represents that the State of Kansas intends to satisfy the amounts awarded
to Plaintiff against the KHP Defendants, as provided for in K.S.A. § 75-6116.2 But according to
counsel, the State only plans to do so if certain steps are first taken with respect to a previous
restitution award against Plaintiff. In 2015, Plaintiff was convicted of attempted first-degree
murder after a jury trial in Kansas state court. His sentence included a term of imprisonment,
which Plaintiff is still serving, along with an order to pay $25,000 in restitution to the Crime
Victims Compensation Board, a program administered by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.
This restitution order appears to be the driving force behind Defendants’ instant motion.
According to Defense counsel, the State has apparently informed him that it will still satisfy the
award against KHP Defendants only on the condition that the State’s “interests are afforded an
opportunity to be adjudicated prior to the distribution by the Court of those monies to Plaintiff.”
Though it is unclear what adjudication either Defense counsel or the State have in mind, especially
considering the State is not a party to this lawsuit, Defendants have now requested the money

2

This statute provides that “[i]f an employee of a governmental entity is or could be subject to personal civil
liability on account of a noncriminal act or omission which is within the scope of the employee’s employment and
which allegedly violates the civil rights laws of the United States or of the state of Kansas . . . [t]he governmental
entity, subject to any procedural requirements imposed by statute, ordinance, resolution or written policy, shall pay or
cause to be paid any judgment or settlement of the claim or suit, including any award of attorney fees, and all costs
and fees incurred by the employee in defense thereof,” if certain requirements are met. K.S.A. § 75-6116(a), (b).

-2-

judgment be deposited into the Court’s registry under Rule 67 until the State is able to collect the
$25,000 restitution.
II.

Legal Standard

Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f any part of the relief
sought is a money judgment or the disposition of a sum of money . . . a party—on notice to every
other party and by leave of court—may deposit with the court all or part of the money.” The
language of this rule commits to the Court’s discretion the decision as to whether to allow deposit
in a particular case.3
Not every case is a proper candidate for the deposit of funds with the Court. “Rule 67 is a
procedural device intended to provide a place for safekeeping for disputed funds pending
resolution of a legal dispute”4

The purpose of this device is to “relieve the depositor of

responsibility for a fund in dispute.”5 Its purpose is not, however, to be an “ ‘equitable’ alternative
to the applicability of state law” collection remedies under Rule 64.6 “Rule 67 was intended to
apply only to a fund that is in dispute.”7
III.

Analysis

These Rule 67 standards make clear that this is not a proper case for deposit of all or even
part of the money judgment with the Court. As Plaintiff ably points out, this is not a case where

3

Garrick v. Weaver, 888 F.2d 687, 694 (10th Cir. 1989).

4

BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Smith, 2020 WL 2914838, at *2 (D. Kan. 2020) (emphasis added), vacated on
other grounds, 2021 WL 3915079 (D. Kan. 2021). See also Cap. Sols., LLC v. Konica Minolta Bus. Sols. U.S.A., Inc.,
695 F. Supp. 2d 1149, 1150 (D. Kan. 2010) (“[T]he Court denies KMBS's motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 67 to
deposit funds with the Court . . . because there is no dispute concerning the entitlement to the funds at issue.”).
5

Hubbard v. Plaza Bonita, LP, 2020 WL 3441027, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (quoting 12 Charles Alan Wright,
Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2991 (2d ed. 1997)).
6

Baxter v. United Forest Prod. Co., 406 F.2d 1120, 1126 (8th Cir. 1969).

7

Id.

-3-

there is a disputed entitlement to these particular funds. Only Plaintiff was entitled to recover
from the KHP Defendants, and thus only Plaintiff is entitled to the specific funds that make up the
money judgment against the KHP Defendants. The State may be entitled to collect some money
from Plaintiff by virtue of the restitution order against him, but it is not necessarily entitled to the
specific funds of the judgment. The State here is much more akin to a creditor of Plaintiff, rather
than a party with some claim of entitlement to the funds at issue. And Plaintiff is correct that the
mere existence of creditors is not enough to require deposit with the Court. The money judgment
here is not “in dispute” for the purposes of Rule 67.
Nor are Defendants solely seeking to relieve themselves of responsibility for the funds at
issue. Rather, they seem to be acting in a capacity akin to agents of the State, so as to ensure it has
the opportunity, before any money is paid to Plaintiff, to collect on the $25,000 restitution. But
Rule 67 is not designed to be an alternative to state law collection remedies.
The Court can understand the dilemma currently faced by the KHP Defendants as a result
of the State’s position, as they have described it. This, however, does not make Rule 67 applicable
to the circumstances before the Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Deposit Monetary
Judgment into Court (Doc. 589) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 25th day of March, 2022.

ERIC F. MELGREN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-