Thomas et al v. Mattingly et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Filing 18 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)

8:21-cv-00272-RGK-PRSE Doc # 22 Filed: 01/07/22 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID # 501

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DYLAN THOMAS,

8:21CV272

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

vs.
DAKOTA OHM, GABRIAL
MATTINGLY, ANDRE WILLIAMS,
DERRICK TRYLER, ARTUROR
FROM HOMELAND SECURITY, and
NAJEEB SHEKAIB
Defendants.

On December 3, 2021, the court entered a final judgment dismissing this case
without prejudice. On January 3, 2022, the received a communication from Plaintiff
which has been docketed as a motion for reconsideration (Filing 18).
Because Plaintiff has not indicated which provision of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure he is relying upon in making the motion for reconsideration, it may
be treated either as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment or as a Rule
60(b) motion for relief from judgment. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161,
168 (8th Cir. 1988). But whichever rule is applied, the motion fails.
Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. United States v. Metro. St. Louis
Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006). Such motions cannot be used to
introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could
have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment. Id.
Under Rule 60(b), a court may grant a party relief from a judgment 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);

8:21-cv-00272-RGK-PRSE Doc # 22 Filed: 01/07/22 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID # 502

(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). Relief under the catchall provision, Rule 60(b)(6), is available
only in “extraordinary circumstances.” Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 777-78 (2017)
(quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005)).
Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s motion, the court concludes Plaintiff has not
demonstrated any legitimate reason for altering, amending, or otherwise obtaining
any relief from the court’s judgment of dismissal without prejudice. He has not
shown that the dismissal was the result of manifest error of law or fact, nor has he
presented any “extraordinary circumstances” justifying relief.
Plaintiff objects to the court citing decisions involving his former co-plaintiff,
Austin Lightfeather, in its Memorandum and Order (see Filing 16 at 5, 6), but those
citations concern propositions of law which are also applicable to Plaintiff’s case.
The court assessed Plaintiff’s claims independently from Lightfeather’s. Plaintiff
next objects that the court stated he alleged that someone “injected” him with poison
(see Filing 16 at 4), because what he actually alleged was that someone gave him a
“Hot Shot of Poison” (see Filing 13 at 2), which did not involve the use of a syringe.
This misstatement did not affect the outcome of the case. Plaintiff also wants
changes made regarding the title of a 250-page treatise he appended to the Amended
Complaint as Exhibit A (see Filing 13 at 1, n.2; Filing 13 at 12). Again, if there is
any discrepancy in wording, it is not a material misstatement.
Plaintiff states he thought he could add claims and parties when filing the
Amended Complaint. In general, this is correct. But as explained in the court’s
Memorandum and Order (see Filing 16 at 3-6), the additional parties were dismissed
because of misjoinder, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) & 21, and, as to certain claims,
because they duplicated claims already asserted by Plaintiff in another pending case.
Finally, Plaintiff takes exception to the court’s statement that his “allegations
that the defendants’ actions were all part of a ‘decade long clandestine full-spectrum
2

8:21-cv-00272-RGK-PRSE Doc # 22 Filed: 01/07/22 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID # 503

dominance counter-terrorism military operation of surveillance and disruption
targeting [Plaintiff] … for assassination’ (Filing 13 at 4) are clearly baseless.” (See
Filing 16 at 6.) The court stands by this statement.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
(Filing 18) is denied.
Dated this 7th day of January 2022.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

3