United States District Court, D. Kansas
RONALD E. DAVIS, Plaintiff,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROBINSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
October 20, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order in
this case granting Defendants State of California and
California Franchise Tax Board's (“CFTB”)
Motions to Dismiss, and denying as moot Defendants State of
California and CFTB's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
40). The Court also ordered Plaintiff to show cause by no
later than November 13, 2017 why Defendant California State
Agency Insurer should not be dismissed because it is a
fictional entity and because Plaintiff failed to effect
proper service of process under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. This matter
comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Relief
from Judgment (Doc. 42), “Motion for Leave of Court to
Amended [sic] and Correct Typo Error in Reference to Prior
Supreme Court Reference” (Doc. 47), and Motion for
Disqualification of Judge (Doc. 48). The Government responded
to Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment, but not
his two other motions. The Court is now prepared to rule. For
the reasons explained below, the Court denies Plaintiff's
motion for relief from judgment, grants his motion for leave
to correct typo, and denies his motion for disqualification
of judge. Additionally, because Plaintiff has failed to show
cause why Defendant California State Agency Insurer should
not be dismissed, the Court dismisses California State Agency
Insurer from this case. Accordingly, this case is dismissed
in its entirety.
Order to Show Cause
Memorandum and Order issued on October 20, 2017, the Court
noted Defendants' argument that Defendant California
State Agency Insurer does not exist, and explained that it
appeared Plaintiff had not properly served this Defendant
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. Accordingly, the Court ordered
Plaintiff to show cause by no later than November 13, 2017
why this Defendant should not be dismissed from this
case. The time for Plaintiff to respond to the
Court's order has long passed without a response from
Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court dismisses California State
Agency Insurer from this case.
Motion for Leave to Correct Typo
moves for leave to correct a reference to Monroe v.
Pape he apparently made in his reply in support
of his motion for relief from judgment. Plaintiff states
he incorrectly referred to the case as “Monroe v.
Tate.” For good cause, the Court grants
Plaintiff's motion. Rather than directing Plaintiff to
file an amended reply brief, the Court simply recognizes that
the case Plaintiff refers to in his reply is Monroe v.
Motion for Relief from Judgment
moves for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
“Relief under Rule 60(b) is extraordinary and limited
to certain exceptional circumstances.” Under Rule 60(b),
the court may relieve a party or its legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
(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 ...