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.

Ross v. Jenkins

United States District Court, D. Kansas

October 9, 2019

KENDRA ROSS, Plaintiff,
v.
ROYALL JENKINS, et al., Defendants. KENDRA ROSS, Plaintiff,
v.
THE PROMISE KEEPERS, INC., et al, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          DANIEL D. CRABTREE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the court on pro se defendant Royall Jenkins's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 184.) and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 196).[1] For reasons discussed below, the court denies both motions.

         I. Background

         On May 23, 2018, the court entered default judgment against defendants Royall Jenkins, The Value Creators, Inc. f/k/a The United Nation of Islam, Inc., The Value Creators LLC, and The Value Creators, Inc. See Doc. 41. Almost a month later, Mr. Jenkins filed a pro se “Motion for New Trial” (Doc. 42). The court construed this motion as, among other things, a motion “to vacate the default judgment it entered against [Mr. Jenkins].” Doc. 93 at 2. The court considered Mr. Jenkins's arguments under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59, 60, 12, and 8. Id. at 2-11. And, the court held, “Mr. Jenkins is not entitled to relief from the court's default judgment under Rule 59(a) or (e), Rule 60(b), Rule 8(b)(3), or Rule 12(b)(4) or (5).” Id. at 11. So, it denied Mr. Jenkins's motion. Id.

         Now, Mr. Jenkins has returned with two motions asserting he is entitled to relief from this court's judgment. In filings that are difficult to follow, he appears to assert that he is entitled to relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b). Doc. 184. As best as the court can discern, Mr. Jenkins alleges the court should set aside judgment based on “fraud” and “misrepresentation” by plaintiff and her counsel, “fail[ure] to state a claim, ” and wrongful parties. Id. at 2. Mr. Jenkins also contends the court should dismiss him from the lawsuit because the court only has jurisdiction over “ROYALL JENKINS the UNITED NATION OF ISLAM” and not “Royall Jenkins.” Doc. 196 at 1. In an effort to liberally construe Mr. Jenkins's filings, the court also construes Mr. Jenkins's filings as a motion for reconsideration under D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b).

         II. Legal Standard

         A. Rule 60(b)

         “Relief under Rule 60(b) is extraordinary and may only be granted in exceptional circumstances.” Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Co., 909 F.2d 1437, 1440 (10th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). A losing party may not invoke Rule 60(b) to present new arguments that the party could have raised in earlier filings. See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1244 (10th Cir. 1991) (discussing requirements of a Rule 60(b) motion). And a party seeking relief from a judgment bears the burden to demonstrate each prerequisite for relief. Id. at 1243-44 (explaining that a movant must show “exceptional circumstances by satisfying one or more of Rule 60(b)'s six grounds for relief from judgment”); see also Cessna Fin. Corp. v. Bielenberg Masonry Contracting, Inc., 715 F.2d 1442, 1444 (10th Cir. 1983) (noting that Rule 60 “seeks to strike a delicate balance between two countervailing impulses: the desire to preserve the finality of judgments and the incessant command of the court's conscience that justice be done in light of all the facts” (internal citations and quotations omitted)).

         B. Reconsideration

         D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b) requires a movant to base his motion for reconsideration on: “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” A motion to reconsider “is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Ferluga v. Eickhoff, 236 F.R.D. 546, 549 (D. Kan. 2006) (citing Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)). So, “a motion for reconsideration is appropriate [only] where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law.” Id. (citing Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012). “The decision whether to grant a motion to reconsider is committed to the district court's discretion.” Coffeyville Res. Ref. & Mktg., LLC v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 748 F.Supp.2d 1261, 1264 (D. Kan. 2010) (citing In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 707 F.Supp.2d 1145, 1166 (D. Kan. 2010)); see also Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 944 (10th Cir. 1995) (noting “the decision to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the district court”).

         III. Analysis

         A. Mr. Jenkins cannot represent other defendants in this case.

         Before the court analyzes Mr. Jenkins's arguments, the court must consider a limitation on legal representation. As this court has explained many times during this case, Mr. Jenkins may only represent himself pro se. He may not make motions on behalf of other defendants because they are business organizations. Only an attorney admitted to our bar may represent a business organization. Harrison v. Wahatoyas, L.L.C., 253 F.3d 552, 556 (10th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the court denies any relief sought by Mr. Jenkins on behalf of other defendants.

         B. Mr. Jenkins's Motion ...


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.