United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
D. CRABTREE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the court on pro se defendant Royall
Jenkins's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 184.) and Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 196). For reasons discussed below, the court
denies both motions.
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.
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).
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)).
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”).
Mr. Jenkins cannot represent other defendants in this
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.
Mr. Jenkins's Motion ...