United States District Court, D. Kansas
SHAWN A. KEYS and BARBARA K. KEYS, Plaintiffs,
BARACK OBAMA, Individually and as Representative of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ERIC F. MELGREN, District Judge.
This Court dismissed a complaint filed against the President and three United States government officials for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration or Reinstatement (Doc. 19), Motion to Set Aside Dismissal (Doc. 23), and Motion for Suggestions and Support for Motion to Reinstate (Doc. 24). Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs Shawn and Barbara Keys have failed to show an adequate ground for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the Court denies all three motions.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
In September 2013, Shawn and Barbara Keys filed an emergency complaint for a temporary restraining order against Barack Obama, President of the United States; Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense; John Brennan, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, in their individual and official capacities. In March 2014, this Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) on sovereign immunity grounds. In October 2014, the Keys filed a Motion for Reconsideration or Reinstatement (Doc. 19). In February 2015, the Keys filed two similar motions titled Motion to Set Aside Court's Dismissal Based on Fraud and Newly Discovered Evidence (Doc. 23) and Motion for Suggestions and Support for Motion to Reinstate (Doc. 24).
II. Legal Standard
Local Rule 7.3(a) provides that a party seeking reconsideration of a dispositive order must file a motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60. A motion filed more than 28 days after the entry of judgment is considered a Rule 60(b) motion. Here, the Keys filed their motions more than seven months after entry of judgment. As such, the Court considers the motions as motions for relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b).
Relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary and only warranted 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 prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
A motion under Rule 60(b) may not be used to revisit the same issues already addressed and dismissed by the court. And the motion may not be used to advance new arguments or supporting facts that were ...