Mayberry v. Thompson et al, No. 4:2013cv00501 - Document 14 (N.D. Okla. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John E Dowdell The plaintiff's recent submission of letters (Doc. 13) does not present any appropriate motion for post-judgment relief, nor does it contain information which would authorize this Court to reconsid er or reverse its prior decision to dismiss this case. The plaintiff has not established the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court will not grant any post-judgment relief or reconsider its July 3, 2014 Opinion and Order dismissing this case without prejudice. (Re: 11 Opinion and Order, Dismissing/Terminating Case, 13 Letter ) (SAS, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA THEOPHAS MAYBERRY, Plaintiff, v. FRANK D. THOMPSON, RUBY REED, HENRY THOMPSON, AND CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER OFFICE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 13-CV-501-JED-TLW OPINION AND ORDER The Court dismissed this action without prejudice on July 3, 2014, and entered a Judgment of Dismissal the same day. (Doc. 11, 12). On July 11, 2014, plaintiff submitted to the Clerk of Court a letter indicating that he would like for Henry Thompson and Frank Thompson to be investigated in behalf of my deceased mother Cathrine [sic] Reed Jefferson and my Aunt Helen Strong, and would also like to gain my rightful inheritance from Frank and Henry Thompson. (Doc. 13). Attached to his letter, which is addressed to whom it may concern, are two virtually identical letters (one handwritten and one typed), dated December 1, 1988. The 1988 letters are addressed to Willia Chahesyr, Jr., Attorney of Law and assert facts suggesting that Frank Thompson exerted undue influence upon plaintiff s aunt, Helen Strong, before she died in 1988. (Doc. 13). From these letters, as well as attachments to the original Complaint, it appears that the plaintiff claims that his mother, Catherine Reed, should have received money from Helen Strong s estate after Strong died in 1988, and that, if Reed had received money, then plaintiff would have been entitled to an inheritance following Reed s death in 2002. (See Doc. 1 at 4). Those allegations were not in the original Complaint, which was directed more to an allegation that a California agency may have bonds belonging to plaintiff. The plaintiff s recent submission of letters (Doc. 13) does not present any appropriate motion for post-judgment relief, nor does it contain information which would authorize this Court to reconsider or reverse its prior decision to dismiss this case. The plaintiff has not established the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court will not grant any post-judgment relief or reconsider its July 3, 2014 Opinion and Order dismissing this case without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of July, 2014. 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.
