Moyer v. Murray et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GREGORY ASHLEY MOYER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-429-SLP
)
JAMES V. MURRAY, Attorney at Law, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
O R D E R
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Relief from Judgment
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) [Doc. No. 78] and Plaintiff’s Brief in Support [Doc.
No. 79]. Plaintiff argues that “extraordinary circumstances” compel relief from the Court’s
Judgment [Doc. No. 67] entered August 4, 2025. Plaintiff cites “newly discovered
evidence” – (1) alleged “public admissions” by Defendant Attorney General Gentner
Drummond regarding “conflicts of interest and failures to investigate ethics complaints”;
and (2) the arrest of “[f]ederal witness Darrell Doughtery” which Plaintiff contends
“constitutes retaliation under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 and represents obstruction that directly
undermines the fairness of these proceedings.” Suppl. Mot. at 2-3.
Plaintiff previously raised similar allegations, at least with respect to Defendant
Drummond, in a Motion for Leave to Supplement Record [Doc. No. 69]. The Court denied
Plaintiff’s request. See Order [Doc. No. 77]. The Court did so noting, among other
deficiencies, that “it is not at all clear how the alleged newly-discovered evidence relates
to any specific claim and/or defendant.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s current filing suffers from this
Case 5:25-cv-00429-SLP Document 80 Filed 09/17/25 Page 1 of 2

2
same problem. He makes only the most conclusory factual allegations and fails to tie those
allegations with any specific prior findings of the Court or claims raised.
Plaintiff also argues that the Court erred in entering judgment prior to certain
Defendants filing any responsive pleading and/or failing to enter default judgment. But
the Court properly addressed the claims against those Defendants and has previously
addressed and rejected similar arguments made by Plaintiff. See, e.g., Order [Doc. No.
64].
“To obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a movant must show ‘extraordinary
circumstances.’” Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 145 F.4th 1279, 1283 (10th
Cir. 2025) (quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005), then citing BLOM Bank
v. Honickman, 605 U.S. --, 145 S.Ct. 1612, 1622 (2025)). Rule 60(b)(6) relief may be
granted “only when necessary to accomplish justice.” Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98
F.3d 572, 579 (10th Cir. 1996). Here, the Court concludes, for the reasons set forth, that
Plaintiff has failed to show any such extraordinary circumstances exist.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Relief
from Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) [Doc. No. 78] and Plaintiff’s Brief in
Support [Doc. No. 79] are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of September, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-00429-SLP Document 80 Filed 09/17/25 Page 2 of 2