Kenney v. Facilities Performance Group et al, No. 4:2009cv00478 - Document 15 (N.D. Okla. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Claire V Eagan ; denying 14 Motion to Reopen Case (Re: 13 Mandate from Circuit Court, 4 Judgment, Dismissing/Terminating Case, ) (RGG, Chambers)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ANTHONY C KENNEY, Plaintiff, v. FACILITIES PERFORMANCE GROUP, LIZA HART LOPER, and MARK WATSON Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 09-CV-0478-CVE-FHM OPINION AND ORDER Now before the Court is plaintiff s pro se Motion to Reopen (Dkt. # 14). It appears that plaintiff seeks to reopen this case because he has not received unemployment benefits. The Court previously dismissed plaintiff s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. # 3. Plaintiff appealed, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Dkt. # 12. The Court treats plaintiff s motion as a motion for relief from a judgment or order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The rule permits a court to relieve a party from a final judgment for certain reasons, including mistake, fraud, or newly discovered evidence. Relief may only be granted when it offends justice to deny such relief. Yapp v. Excel Corp., 186 F.3d 1222, 1232 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 580 (10th Cir. 1996)). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is appropriate when circumstances are so unusual or compelling that extraordinary relief is warranted, or when it offends justice to deny such relief. Cashner, 98 F.3d at 580 (citation omitted). The fact that plaintiff is not receiving unemployment benefits does not merit reopening this case,1 nor does it change the fact that plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim in his complaint. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff s motion to reopen (Dkt. # 14) is denied. DATED this 9th day of March, 2010. 1 Plaintiff alleges that defendants are committing fraud. This is not the sort of fraud that forms the basis for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); the rule is concerned with fraud that affected the outcome of a case. 2

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.