Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Myzer v. Bush

United States District Court, D. Kansas

March 9, 2018

JOHN S. MYZER, Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Kathryn H. Vratil United States District Judge.

         On 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.

         Procedural Background

         In his 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.

         More 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.

         Legal Standard

         The 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.