Atkins v. Kansas, State of et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JAMES NICHOLAS ATKINS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 23-3099-JWL
STATE OF KANSAS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brought this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	At the time of
filing, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Lansing Correctional Facility in Lansing, Kansas.
Plaintiff has since been released from custody. 	(Doc. 7.) 	The Court granted Plaintiff leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. 	On May 23, 2023, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order
(Doc. 8) dismissing this case for failure to state a claim.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (Doc. 10) filed on
November 17, 2025. 	Because Plaintiff’s motion was not filed within 28 days after the entry of
the judgment, the Court will treat it as a motion under Rule 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A
motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment.”)
Plaintiff’s motion provides in its entirety: “Motion to Reopen case: Because my medical
records [weren’t] submitted to the courts. Also I think it wasn’t a fair decision.” (Doc. 10, at 1.)
Plaintiff’s motion is treated as a motion filed under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, seeking relief from judgment entered in this matter. See Weitz v. Lovelace Health
System Inc., 214 F.3d 1175, 1178 (10th Cir. 2000). Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part that:
Case 5:23-cv-03099-JWL Document 11 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 3

2
On motion and just terms, the 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 (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).
A Rule 60(b) motion provides extraordinary relief which “may only be granted in
exceptional circumstances.” Amoco Oil Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
231 F.3d 694, 697 (10th Cir. 2000). The decision to grant such relief “is extraordinary and may
only be granted in exceptional circumstances.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005,
1009 (10th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff does not assert relief under any of the subsections in Rule 60(b). 	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. Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241,
1243 (10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff has not shown that relief under Rule 60(b) is warranted. 	Plaintiff has failed to
provide any justification for reopening this case two and a half years after it was dismissed.
Plaintiff’s motion to reopen is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen
(Doc. 10) is denied.
Case 5:23-cv-03099-JWL Document 11 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated November 18, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:23-cv-03099-JWL Document 11 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 3