Brown v. Eppler et al

Filing 238

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to Rule 60 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. # 235) is denied. The Court Clerk is directed to return to plaintiff by mail the $ ;4 in cash and the $1 check left at the Court Clerk's office on June 17, 2014. ; denying 235 Motion to Vacate Order/Judgment (Re: 234 Order, Dismissing/Terminating Case,, Ruling on Motion for Release,,,, 237 Notice (Other) ) (RGG, Chambers)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

DAVID L. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
METROPOLITAN TULSA
TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 09-CV-0466-CVE-TLW

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes on for consideration of plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant
to Rule 60 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. # 235) and the Notice by Plaintiff of Return
to Court of Check Sent by Defendants as Alleged Payment of Judgment (Dkt. # 237). Plaintiff asks
the Court to reconsider its final judgment and permanent injunction (Dkt. # 209) directing defendant
Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority (MTTA) to hold a due process hearing, and he argues that the
Court, rather than MTTA, is required to hold the hearing and rule on the merits of his arguments
concerning his right to ride the bus. Dkt. # 235. He has also visited the Court Clerk’s office and left
$4 in cash and a $1 check from MTTA with the Court Clerk, and he asks the Court to take notice
that he has rejected MTTA’s attempt to satisfy the judgment. Dkt. # 237.
On April 24, 2014, the Court entered an opinion and order (Dkt. # 208) and final judgment
and permanent injunction (Dkt. # 209) in favor of plaintiff. The Court awarded plaintiff nominal
damages of $1 and ordered MTTA to hold a due process hearing concerning plaintiff’s permanent
ban from MTTA busses. MTTA has complied with the final judgment and permanent injunction,
and the Court has entered an order (Dkt. # 234) finding that the final judgment and permanent

injunction (Dkt. # 209) is satisfied.1 Plaintiff has filed several motions challenging the Court’s
decision to order MTTA to hold a due process hearing, and he claims that the due process hearing
should be conducted as a court hearing. Dkt. # 212, at 3; Dkt. # 214, at 1-2; Dkt. # 218, at 1-2; Dkt.
# 230, at 2-3. The Court has advised plaintiff that the due process hearing is an administrative
hearing conducted by MTTA and that it is not a court hearing, and the Court has rejected plaintiff’s
requests for judicial involvement in the due process hearing. Dkt. # 220, at 2; Dkt. # 228, at 1.
Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal (Dkt. # 216) of the final judgment and permanent injunction.
On June 17, 2014, plaintiff came to the Court Clerk’s office and asked to make a payment
of two dollars. The Court Clerk accepted the two dollars. Plaintiff returned to the Court Clerk’s
office later on the same day, and he again asked to pay two dollars. The Court Clerk attempted to
return plaintiff’s money but he left without accepting return of the money. Plaintiff also left his $1
check from MTTA at the Court Clerk’s office, and he claims that the case is stayed due to his
rejection of the check and his filing of a notice of appeal. Dkt. # 237.
Rule 60(b) states that a court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
judgment or order due to:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

1

At the due process hearing, plaintiff brought a witness named Samuel Hill to testify on his
behalf. Dkt. # 233-5, at 2. Plaintiff previously filed a lawsuit against Tulsa Police
Department officers alleging that he was falsely arrested after an altercation with Hill, and
he claimed that he acted in self-defense when he beat Hill with a tree limb. Leslie Brown,
Jr. v. James Cole et al., 12-CV-577-CVE-PJC (N.D. Okla.). Plaintiff claimed that Hill had
previously been arrested for assaulting a security guard at an MTTA bus station, public
intoxication, and trespassing, and plaintiff claimed that police violated his constitutional
rights by accepting Hill’s statements as evidence that plaintiff had committed a crime.
Leslie Brown, Jr. v. James Cole et al., 12-CV-577-CVE-PJC, Dkt. # 21, at 4 (N.D. Okla.
March 21, 2013) The Court found that the defendants had qualified immunity from suit, and
this decision was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
2

(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.
Plaintiff’s motions fall under Rule 60(b)(6). Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) “‘is an extraordinary procedure’
which ‘seeks to strike a delicate balance between two countervailing impulses: the desire to preserve
the finality of judgments and the incessant command of the court’s conscience that justice be done
in light of all the facts.’” Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 856 (10th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted)
(emphasis in original). The decision to grant relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary, and plaintiff
has the burden to show that exceptional circumstances exist that require the Court to amend or
vacate a final judgment or order. Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir.
2000).
Plaintiff again challenges the Court’s opinion and order granting his motion for a permanent
injunction and he claims that the Court, not MTTA, was required to hold a due process hearing. The
Court has previously rejected plaintiff’s arguments on this issue, and plaintiff has cited no new
evidence or legal authority that would require reconsideration of the Court’s prior decisions. The
Court declines to reconsider its final judgment and permanent injunction based on plaintiff’s
arguments that have previously been considered and rejected by this Court. The Court will also
direct the Court Clerk to return to plaintiff the cash and check left at the Court Clerk’s office. The

3

Court Clerk has advised the undersigned that plaintiff has no outstanding court costs, and the $1
check was issued by MTTA, not the Court. Plaintiff is warned that any future pleadings raising
arguments that have previously been rejected by the Court will be considered frivolous, and such
filings could subject plaintiff to sanctions and/or filing restrictions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to
Rule 60 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. # 235) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court Clerk is directed to return to plaintiff by mail
the $4 in cash and the $1 check left at the Court Clerk’s office on June 17, 2014.
DATED this 18th day of June, 2014.

4