Curtis v. Little et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
RICHARD CURTIS, 	Case No. 1:20-cv-543
Plaintiff, 	Dlott, J
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
JESSICA LITTLE, et al., 	REPORT AND
Defendants. 	RECOMMENDATION
In 2020, plaintiff, an inmate at the Marion Correctional Institution, brought an action
against defendants Jessica Little, Chris Van Harlingen, Carl E. Smith, Dr. Timothy McKinley,
Claude Douglas Bentley, Linn Covert-Stalbosky, and Mary Lindsey related to his 2009 murder
conviction in Brown County, Ohio. In particular, plaintiff alleged that these defendants conspired
to issue a warrant without probable cause and present false evidence/withhold exculpatory
evidence from the defense. (See Doc. 5 at PAGEID 253, summarizing Doc. 1 at PAGEID 21-31).
On August 3, 2020, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation that plaintiff’s
complaint be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Doc. 5 at
PAGEID 257). The District Judge adopted this Report and Recommendation, and the Clerk
entered judgment accordingly. (Docs. 6, 7).
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion, five years after that disposition,
asking that he be permitted to “re-file the above Complaint without re-submitting all of the
records[.]” (Doc. 8 at PAGEID 261). Approximately one week following this request, he filed
what he captioned as a “prayer increase” listing all of the original defendants in this action and
premised on the “despicable horrific, deplorable conditions of being placed in the ‘hole’ when
returning from Ohio State University Wexner. . . .” (Doc. 9 at PAGEID 266).
Plaintiff cites no legal authority for his motion and offers the Court little basis to
Case: 1:20-cv-00543-SJD-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/25/25 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
reasonably construe his request as one seeking relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)—such as
allegations relevant to the enumerated bases for relief, which are:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In addition, Rule 60(b) motions based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
or excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; or fraud must be made within one year after the
order or judgment at issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
The only connection to plaintiff’s dismissed action are his references to “re-fil[ing]” his
dismissed complaint (Doc. 8 at PAGEID 261) and to the defendants in the dismissed action (Doc.
9 at PAGEID 265). The only substantive information plaintiff offers is in his latter filing, where
he describes certain conditions of confinement that are unrelated to the allegations in the above-
captioned dismissed action. (See Doc. 9).1 Cf. 7 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
FEDERAL P RACTICE AND P ROCEDURE § 1655 (3d ed. 2025) (“[P]laintiff may join multiple
defendants in a single action only if plaintiff asserts at least one claim to relief against each of
1 Plaintiff also states: “The case was a dead case, in actuality, not much, if anything done-with the exception of
“Special Skull Sessions”-and falsifying of the Death Certificate and Supplemental.” (Id. at PAGEID 266). To the
extent decipherable, this allegation appears most closely related to Rule 60(b)(3), which plaintiff is well out of time to
assert. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
Case: 1:20-cv-00543-SJD-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/25/25 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
them that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence and presents questions of law or fact
common to all.”).
Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 8) does not describe relief available under any federal rule of civil
procedure or other legal authority. To the extent it is construed as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief
from judgment, it should be DENIED.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 8) be DENIED.
Date:
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
11/25/2025
Case: 1:20-cv-00543-SJD-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/25/25 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
RICHARD CURTIS, 	Case No. 1:20-cv-543
Plaintiff, 	Dlott, J
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
JESSICA LITTLE, et al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 1:20-cv-00543-SJD-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/25/25 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>