Marshall et al v. Burnley et al

Filing 111

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 109 Motion for Relief. Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 6/12/2023. Mailed to pro se party Krystal M. Marshall and Milton J. Davison by regular mail. (ca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

KRYSTAL MARSHALL,
Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No. 17-1090-EFM

BENJAMIN BURNELY, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pro se plaintiffs Milton Davison and Krystal Marshall brought this action against some
two dozen defendants, based on events which allegedly occurred while they were attending an
alternative rock band performance at the Cotillion Ballroom in Wichita, Kansas. Plaintiffs sued
the bar, the band, its members, various promoters, and numerous other individuals.
On December 15, 2017, the Court granted the Motions to Dismiss filed on behalf of most
of the Defendants, denying only the motion filed by Defendant Dueling Piano Bar. Recognizing
that its Order disposed of all claims then advanced by Plaintiff Marshall, the Court directed her
to file an amended complaint no later than December 28, 2017. Marshall never responded, and
on April 5, 2018, the Court directed that Judgment be entered against her pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b).
The Court soon resolved the remainder of the action, that is, Plaintiff Davison’s claims
against Defendants New England Audio, LLC, Dueling Piano Bar, and Bob Adams.

On

February 20, 2018, the Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant New
England Audio, LLC. On June 13, 2018, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant
Bob Adams. Plaintiff Davison wrote to the Court on June 29, 2018 to state that he “had no intent
to sue Dueling Piano [but] [m]y daughter insisted that I do so.” Three days later, the Court
dismissed the remainder of the case.
The matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff Marshall’s Motion for Relief “Under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60A and 60B.” The Motion advances claims of “murder coverups . . . GENOCIDING my entire family,” which, judging from the attachments to Marshall’s
Motion, appear to relate to a series of crimes in New England discovered in the 1980s. The
Motion identifies no error in this Court’s prior rulings.
A motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(a) is limited to minor errors—a
“clerical mistake” or “a mistake arising from oversight.” “Errors that affect substantial rights of
the parties . . . are beyond the scope of [R]ule 60(a).”1 Plaintiff identifies no error of a clerical
nature in the Court’s prior Orders.
A motion for relief under Rule 60(b) must be made “within a reasonable time.”2 The
Court entered Judgment against Plaintiff Marshall on April 5, 2018. Again, the Motion lacks any
hint of validity. Moreover, the Motion for Relief, filed four years after Judgment, offers no
rationale at all for the delay. The motion is manifestly untimely.

1

Weeks v. Jones, 100 F.3d 124, 128 (11th Cir. 1996).

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1)

-2-

IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED that Plaintiff Marshall’s Motion for Relief (Doc.
109) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day of June, 2023.

ERIC F. MELGREN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-