Mayberry v. Thompson et al
Filing
14
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John E Dowdell The plaintiff's recent submission of letters (Doc. 13) does not present any appropriate motion for post-judgment relief, nor does it contain information which would authorize this Court to reconsid er or reverse its prior decision to dismiss this case. The plaintiff has not established the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court will not grant any post-judgment relief or reconsider its July 3, 2014 Opinion and Order dismissing this case without prejudice. (Re: 11 Opinion and Order, Dismissing/Terminating Case, 13 Letter ) (SAS, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
THEOPHAS MAYBERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK D. THOMPSON, RUBY REED,
HENRY THOMPSON, AND
CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER
OFFICE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 13-CV-501-JED-TLW
OPINION AND ORDER
The Court dismissed this action without prejudice on July 3, 2014, and entered a
Judgment of Dismissal the same day. (Doc. 11, 12). On July 11, 2014, plaintiff submitted to the
Clerk of Court a letter indicating that he “would like for Henry Thompson and Frank Thompson
to be investigated in behalf of my deceased mother Cathrine [sic] Reed Jefferson and my Aunt
Helen Strong, and would also like to gain my rightful inheritance from Frank and Henry
Thompson.” (Doc. 13). Attached to his letter, which is addressed “to whom it may concern,”
are two virtually identical letters (one handwritten and one typed), dated December 1, 1988. The
1988 letters are addressed to “Willia Chahesyr, Jr., Attorney of Law” and assert facts suggesting
that Frank Thompson exerted undue influence upon plaintiff’s aunt, Helen Strong, before she
died in 1988. (Doc. 13). From these letters, as well as attachments to the original Complaint, it
appears that the plaintiff claims that his mother, Catherine Reed, should have received money
from Helen Strong’s estate after Strong died in 1988, and that, if Reed had received money, then
plaintiff would have been entitled to an inheritance following Reed’s death in 2002. (See Doc. 1
at 4). Those allegations were not in the original Complaint, which was directed more to an
allegation that a California agency may have bonds belonging to plaintiff.
The plaintiff’s recent submission of letters (Doc. 13) does not present any appropriate
motion for post-judgment relief, nor does it contain information which would authorize this
Court to reconsider or reverse its prior decision to dismiss this case. The plaintiff has not
established the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court will not grant any
post-judgment relief or reconsider its July 3, 2014 Opinion and Order dismissing this case
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of July, 2014.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?