Knight vs. Knight, No. 06-8041 (10th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS March 19, 2007 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court JAM ES DALE KN IGH T, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 06-8041 v. D. W yoming NINA R. KNIGHT; JANIECE I. KN IGH T; W ILLIAM J. KN IGH T; M AR GR ET KN IGH T, (D.C. No. 02-CV-1050-J) Defendants - Appellees. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * Before H E N RY, BR ISC OE, and O BRIEN, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. * This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. James Dale Knight, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court s denial of his M otion to Dismiss Pleading for Judgment. W e affirm. On July 18, 2002, Knight filed suit in district court against Appellees seeking title to reclaim properties located in Alaska and Wyoming. On November 21, 2002, the court granted Appellees motion to dismiss based on the statute of frauds. Almost a year later, K night filed a motion for reconsideration. On December 8, 2003, the court denied the motion because it essentially reiterated arguments considered by the court. Knight appealed and we affirmed. Knight v. Knight, No. 04-8000, 2005 W L 361805 (10th Cir. Feb. 16, 2005). The mandate was issued on February 16, 2005. On M ay 11, 2006, Knight filed a M otion to Dismiss - Pleading for Judgment in the district court alleging (1) the district court s grant of A ppellees motion to dismiss without a hearing violated his due process rights, (2) the Alaska judgment quieting title to the Alaska property in the Appellees was void for lack of jurisdiction, 1 and (3) Appellees counsel comm itted fraud on the court and should be sanctioned. On M ay 17, 2006, the district court denied K night s motion concluding it raised no new claims and was untimely under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It also denied Knight s request for sanctions against Appellees counsel. 1 In June 2002, Appellees filed a quiet title complaint in Alaska state court concerning the Alaska property; Knight was served with the complaint in July 2002. On A pril 3, 2003, the A laska state court granted quiet title to A ppellees. -2- W e construe Knight s M otion to Dismiss - Pleading for Judgment as a Rule 60(b) motion, the denial of which we review for abuse of discretion. F.D.I.C. v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 152 F.3d 1266, 1272 (10th Cir. 1998). Knight s Rule 60(b) motion essentially seeks relief from the district court s previous orders based on the alleged fraud of A ppellees counsel. Although that rule allow s a court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order for fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party, a motion for such relief must be made within one year after the judgment or order. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). Knight s motion was untimely. M oreover, Knight s fraud claims merely evidence his disagreement w ith the legal arguments of Appellees counsel. They are without merit. Equally unavailing is Knight s argument that his due process rights w ere violated when the district court granted Appellees m otion to dismiss without a hearing. The court was not required to hold a hearing. Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 136 F.3d 313, 315-16 (2d Cir. 1998). Lastly, the Alaska judgment quieting title to the Alaska property in Appellees is not void for lack of jurisdiction. The mere fact the federal district court concluded it had jurisdiction over K night s lawsuit against Appellees does not mean the A laska state court lacked jurisdiction over Appellees quiet title action. A FFIR ME D. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Terrence L. O Brien Circuit Judge -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
