BULLENS v. OPENAI L.P. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
RONALD BULLENS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-01024-TWP-MJD
)
OPENAI L.P., 	)
SAM ALTMAN, 	)
AFFILIATED ENTITIES Does 1-25, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER ON POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS
This matter is before the Court on several post-judgment motions filed by pro se Plaintiff
Ronald Bullens ("Bullens"), including a Motion to Reopen Case and Reinstate Second Amended
Complaint (Dkt. 57), Motion for Leave to Supplement Record (Dkt. 64), Emergency Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 61), Motion for Limited Expedited Discovery (Dkt. 62), and
Motion to Shorten Time (Dkt. 63). For the following reasons, Bullens' Motion for Leave to
Supplement Record (Dkt. 64) is granted, his Motion to Reopen Case is denied, and his remaining
motions are denied as moot. This action remains closed, and any further review of this Court's
orders must be sought with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Bullens initiated this action against OpenAI L.P., Sam Altman, and several unidentified
defendants ("Defendants") in May 2025, asserting claims under the Copyright Act and Title 18 of
the United States Code, as well as several state law claims (Dkt. 1). Bullens also filed numerous
motions, including two motions for emergency injunctive relief. In the Entry of July 25, 2025, the
Court gave Bullens leave to proceed in forma pauperis, denied his motions, and found that his
Complaint was subject to dismissal because it failed to adequately allege a claim under the
Case 1:25-cv-01024-TWP-MJD Document 65 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Copyright Act, Bullens cannot pursue civil claims under Title 18, and he cannot pursue his
remaining state law claims in this federal Court without diversity of citizenship (Dkt. 40 at 4–6).
The Court granted Bullens leave to file an amended complaint, which he did on July 30,
2025, followed by another motion for immediate injunctive relief. Bullens' Amended Complaint
did not amend any of the facts or claims asserted in his original Complaint, and merely added new
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In its Entry of August 20, 2025, the Court screened the Amended
Complaint and again found that it was subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
for many of the same reasons as his original Complaint (Dkt. 46). Bullens sought further leave to
amend (Dkt. 43 at 2), but the Court determined that further opportunities to amend would be futile,
dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, and entered final judgment (Dkts. 46, 47).
Bullens then filed a post-judgment Motion for Leave to File Amended Jurisdictional
Statement, seeking to remedy prior pleading deficiencies regarding diversity of citizenship (Dkt.
48). The Court construed the motion as a request for reconsideration or relief from judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and, in the Entry of October 21, 2025, denied the motion (Dkt.
50).
In October, Bullens filed the three more post-judgment motions attempting to file a Second
Amended Complaint and again seeking immediate injunctive relief (Dkts. 51, 52, 53). Bullens'
proposed Second Amended Complaint, like his first two complaints, alleges that he created
artificial intelligence systems using ChatGPT, and that he believes OpenAI subsequently released
its own program that "mimicked" Bullens' programs (Dkt. 51-1 at 2–5). The Court again denied
Bullens' motions as moot "because this action was DISMISSED and CLOSED on August 20,
2025." (Dkt. 54 (emphases in original)). The Court stated that if Bullens still seeks relief, he must
Case 1:25-cv-01024-TWP-MJD Document 65 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
do so by filing a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 or by filing a new action
against Defendants in the appropriate court. Id. at 3.
In November 2025, Bullens filed the pending Rule 60(b) Motion to Reopen and more
recent Motion for Leave to Supplement the Rule 60(b) record (Dkt. 64). Defendants filed their
response to the Rule 60(b) Motion on December 3, 2025 (Dkt. 59), and the next day, Bullens filed
a reply brief (Dkt. 60), (fourth) Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 61),
Motion for Limited Expedited Discovery (Dkt. 62), and Motion to Shorten Time for Response
(Dkt. 63).
II. 	DISCUSSION
The Court will first address Bullens' Motion for Leave to Supplement and Rule 60(b)
Motion, followed by his Emergency Motion for TRO, Motion for Limited Discovery, and Motion
to Shorten Time.
A. 	Motion for Leave to Supplement (Dkt. 64)
Bullens' Motion to Supplement seeks leave to file "newly developed supporting material
referenced as Exhibit 28." (Dkt. 64). Bullens explains that since he filed his Rule 60(b) Motion, he
has "compiled" several new documents that support his claims. These documents include
additional allegations by Bullens, an affidavit from Bullens, and an "affidavit" generated by an
artificial intelligence program known as "Grok" (of X, formerly Twitter). Bullens' Motion to
Supplement is granted to the extent that the Court will consider Exhibit 28. However, for the
reasons explained below, these materials do not change the Court's conclusion that Bullens' Rule
60(b) Motion should be denied.
B. 	Rule 60(b) Motion to Reopen Case
Courts grant relief under Rule 60(b) only in exceptional circumstances. See Trade Well
Int'l v. United Central Bank, 825 F.3d 854, 860 (7th Cir. 2016). The Rule provides that the district
Case 1:25-cv-01024-TWP-MJD Document 65 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for
the following reasons: (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, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party; (4) voidness of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; or (6) any other reason that
justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A party requesting relief from a final judgment is required to
make a strong showing under Rule 60(b) because of the "strong presumption against the reopening
of final decisions." Connecticut Nat'l Mortg. Co. v. Brandstatter, 897 F.2d 883, 885 (7th Cir.
1990). Rule 60(b) "establishes a high hurdle for parties seeking to avoid [final] judgments and
requires something more compelling than ordinary lapses of diligence or simple neglect to justify
disturbing a [final] judgment." Jones v. Phipps, 39 F.3d 158, 162 (7th Cir. 1994).
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to ask the Court to reconsider matters
"properly encompassed in a decision on the merits." Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169,
174, (1989). The motion "will be successful only where the movant clearly establishes: (1) that the
court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded
entry of judgment." Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation
and quotation marks omitted). A manifest error "is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the
losing party. It is the wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling
precedent." Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (citation and
quotation marks omitted).
In his Rule 60(b) Motion, Bullens argues that the Court should grant him relief from the
final judgment because his lawsuit was dismissed prematurely, and the Court should have accepted
his proposed Second Amended Complaint. Bullens asserts that "[o]n October 28, 2025, [he] timely
Case 1:25-cv-01024-TWP-MJD Document 65 Filed 12/15/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
submitted a Second Amended Complaint" and various exhibits, and that on "October 31, 2025,
[he] filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Evidence," including evidence that he had
mailed documents to the United States Copyright Office (Dkt. 57 at 2). Bullens argues that the
Court erred by declining to consider the Second Amended Complaint on the grounds of mootness
yet referencing its content, which Bullens believes shows "potential inadvertent screening or
misunderstanding of the procedural posture" by the Court. Id. at 3. Bullens also argues that it would
be manifestly unjust to dismiss his lawsuit "without reviewing the expanded factual record"
because he "made every effort to timely amend and supplement the complaint." Id. at 3–4.
Bullens' Rule 60(b) Motion does not draw to the Court's attention any manifest error of law
or fact, or any newly discovered evidence warranting reconsideration of its decision to dismiss this
action and not accept Bullens' post-judgment Second Amended Complaint. "The decision to deny
leave to file [an] amended complaint is within the reasoned discretion of the district court." Wade
v. WellPoint, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 2d 1102, 1125 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Campania Mgmt. Co. v. Rooks,
Pitts & Poust, 290 F.3d 843, 850 (7th Cir. 2002); DeSalle v. Wright, 969 F.2d 273, 277 (7th Cir.
1992)). The Court's November 7, 2025 Order merely summarized Bullens' proposed pleading; the
Court did not "inadvertently" screen the pleading or "misunderstand" the procedural posture of this
action.
The Court's order was clear—this action was dismissed and closed on August 20, 2025. As
Defendants note in their response, Bullens could not amend his complaint while the final judgment
remained in effect. (Dkt. 54 at 3); see Moran v. Calumet City, 54 F.4th 483, 500 n.10 (7th Cir.
2022) ("[O]nce a district court has entered final judgment dismissing a case, [a] plaintiff may not
amend under Rule 15(a) unless the judgment is modified, either by the district court under Rule
Case 1:25-cv-01024-TWP-MJD Document 65 Filed 12/15/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
50(e) or 60(b), or on appeal."). The Court did not manifestly err in denying as moot Bullens' request
to file the Second Amended Complaint.
Bullens' new evidence and allegations also do not warrant relief from the final judgment.
The proposed Second Amended Complaint and Exhibit 28 allege, generally, that Bullens submitted
a copyright application to the Copyright Office after the entry of final judgment, and that OpenAI
has appropriated elements of another AI program created by an unknown person (Dkt. 51-1 at 9;
Dkt. 64-1 at 2–3). In their response, Defendants correctly point out that "the fact that [Bullens] is
now seeking to register his work with the U.S. Copyright Office undermines his claim for copyright
infringement, because [Bullens] needed to secure registration before filing suit." (Dkt. 59 at 3).
Although Bullens alleges that he has now began the process of registering his work with the
Copyright Office, he has no viable federal copyright claim against Defendants until and unless he
receives the copyright registration. Moreover, evidence that Bullens began the copyright
registration process after the entry of final judgment fails to show that the Court committed a
manifest error of law by entering final judgment.
Further, Bullens' new allegations1 regarding Defendants' misappropriation of another
person's AI-generated program has no bearing on Bullens' claims and does not show that relief
from the final judgment in this case is warranted. In Exhibit 28 (Dkt. 64-1), Bullens offers
allegations regarding "parallel claims of Mejaz-Ul-Haque," which Bullens extrapolates from
public social media posts by "@MejazAI." Bullens claims that these allegations "underscore[]
Defendants' motive to suppress grassroots IP claims." Id. at 2. However, any potential claims by
"@MejazAI" are not relevant to the plausibility of Bullens' claims against Defendants.
1 The "affidavit" by Grok, a Twitter-bot, has no evidentiary value. The Court only accepts affidavits from people.
Case 1:25-cv-01024-TWP-MJD Document 65 Filed 12/15/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Accordingly, the Court did not commit a manifest error of law or fact by dismissing this
action and denying Bullens leave to file a post-judgment Second Amended Complaint. Bullens'
Rule 60(b) Motion to Reopen Case and Reinstate Second Amended Complaint is denied.
C. 	Remaining Pending Motions
Because Bullens' Rule 60(b) Motion is denied and this action remains closed, Bullens'
Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Motion for Limited Expedited Discovery,
and Motion to Shorten Time are denied as moot.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Bullens' Motion for Leave to Supplement Record (Dkt. 64)
is GRANTED, the Motion to Reopen Case and Reinstate Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 57)
is DENIED, and the Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 61), Motion for
Limited Expedited Discovery (Dkt. 62), and Motion to Shorten Time (Dkt. 63) are DENIED as
moot. This action REMAINS CLOSED. If Bullens desires further review of the Court's orders in
this action, he must seek that review with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 	12/15/2025
Distribution:
RONALD BULLENS
3186 State Road 46 W.
Nashville, IN 47448
Avishai Don
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
adon@wsgr.com
Andrew M. McNeil
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP (Indianapolis)
amcneil@boselaw.com
Case 1:25-cv-01024-TWP-MJD Document 65 Filed 12/15/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>