Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied James Nicholas Atkins’s second motion to reopen his dismissed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Treating the motion as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the court held that Atkins had not shown exceptional circumstances or any other basis warranting relief from the judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff's motion to reopen, filed more than 28 days after judgment, should be treated as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
- Whether Plaintiff demonstrated grounds warranting relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).
Holdings
- A motion to reopen filed more than 28 days after entry of judgment is treated as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), rather than as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e).
- Plaintiff was not entitled to relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b) because he did not identify a subsection or establish circumstances warranting reopening the case.
Key quotations
“A Rule 60(b) motion provides extraordinary relief which “may only be granted in exceptional circumstances.””
“Revisiting issues already addressed “is not the purpose of a motion to reconsider,” and “advanc[ing] new arguments or supporting facts which were otherwise available for presentation when the original . . . motion was briefed” is likewise inappropriate.”
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that he suffered burns to his shoulder, chest, and face and was housed at Lansing Correctional Facility with an inmate serving a life sentence. He asserted that the case was dismissed because the court had not received his medical records, but the court clarified that the prior dismissal was for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed the second motion to reopen approximately two and a half years after the action was dismissed.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights action while incarcerated at Lansing Correctional Facility and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismissed the action on May 23, 2023, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed a first motion to reopen in November 2025, which was denied; after that order was returned as undeliverable, he filed a second motion to reopen on January 9, 2026. The court denied the second motion because Plaintiff did not establish a basis for Rule 60(b) relief or justify reopening the case approximately two and a half years after dismissal.