United States District Court, D. Kansas
JOHN S. MYZER, Plaintiff,
GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Kathryn H. Vratil United States District Judge.
October 8, 2003, plaintiff brought suit against President
George W. Bush and others, alleging that numerous
conspirators engaged in a scheme to conceal plaintiff's
true identity and prevent him from receiving his rightful
inheritance. On October 25, 2004, the Court dismissed
plaintiff's suit with prejudice because, among other
things, plaintiff did not set forth a basis for subject
matter jurisdiction and failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. Memorandum And Order (Doc.
#138) at 3-4. This matter is before the Court on
plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration (Doc.
#144) filed February 5, 2018, which asks the Court to set
aside that order pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Report And Recommendation (Doc. #63) filed August
17, 2004, Judge O'Hara summarized the suit's relevant
procedural history as follows:
Plaintiff claims that various conspirators, potentially
numbering (he says) literally in the hundreds of thousands,
have engaged in an elaborate scheme to conceal
plaintiff's true identity from him in order to deprive
plaintiff of his inheritance. Plaintiff asserts that his
biological parents were killed by “adventurers”
and that he was raised by several different people who
alternately assumed the names Marguerite and Sherman Myzer;
he also claims that Mr. and Mrs. Myzer were not actually
married, but that they maintained this facade for the sole
purpose of perpetrating a fraud on plaintiff.
Plaintiff names sixty-four separate defendants in his
complaint and makes several claims against some or all of the
defendants. . . . Plaintiff has filed approximately
thirty-one motions to amend his complaint to join additional
defendants. These defendants include, but are not limited to,
the United States government, each of the fifty states of the
union, the government of the United Kingdom, every school
plaintiff ever attended, every health and/or medical provider
who has ever treated plaintiff, and the entire food and
beverage industry. In most cases, specific parties are not
named, and in all cases, no basis for jurisdiction or even
the residence of the proposed defendant is alleged.
Id. at 2. Further, Judge O'Hara stated that
plaintiff (1) did not properly serve any defendants; (2)
refused to amend his complaint to satisfy Rule 8(a), Fed. R.
Civ. P.; and (3) did not set forth any basis for subject
matter jurisdiction. Id. at 3-5, 7. On October 25,
2004, for reasons above, the Court dismissed plaintiff's
complaint with prejudice. Memorandum And Order (Doc.
#138) at 3-4.
than 14 years after the Court entered judgment against him,
plaintiff seeks reconsideration pursuant to Rules 60(b)(4),
(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. Memorandum In Support Of Motion
(Doc. #145) filed February 5, 2018 at 1-2. In particular,
plaintiff argues that the judgment is void because the Court
lacked personal jurisdiction and did not afford him due
process. Id. at 1-3. He also asserts that the Court
should set aside the judgment because “plaintiff lacked
the capacity to defend or understand his rights” during
his suit. Id. at 4.
Court has discretion to grant or deny a motion to vacate
judgment under Rule 60(b). See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v.
United Pac. Ins. Co., 152 F.3d 1266, 1272 (10th Cir.
1998). Relief under Rule 60(b) is extraordinary and may only
be granted in exceptional circumstances. See Yapp v.
Excel Corp., 186 F.3d 1222, 1231 (10th Cir. 1999). Under
Rule 60(b), the Court may relieve a party from a final
judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, 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 ...