Jones v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 9

ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen (Doc. 7 ) is denied. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 02/19/21. Mailed to pro se party Joseph Lee Jones by regular mail. (smnd)

Case 5:18-cv-03056-SAC Document 9 Filed 02/19/21 Page 1 of 2

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

CASE NO. 18-3056-SAC

BUREAU OF PRISONS, et. al,
Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiff filed this pro se Bivens-type action alleging cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment and medical malpractice. On April 3, 2018, the Court
dismissed this matter without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee by the Court’s deadline.
(Doc. 5). The Court found that Plaintiff is subject to the “three-strikes” provision under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). On February 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen (Doc. 7).
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
1

Case 5:18-cv-03056-SAC Document 9 Filed 02/19/21 Page 2 of 2

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 to reopen. Plaintiff
alleges that he is no longer subject to the “three-strikes” provision because he is now civilly
committed. However, the provision applied to Plaintiff when he initiated this action and this
case has been closed for almost three years. 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 to Reopen (Doc. 7) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated February 19, 2021, at Topeka, Kansas.

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

2