Miller v. Mitchell

Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARQUIS MILLER,
Plaintiff,
VS. 	Case No. 25-CV-535-SWS
SUZANNE MITCHELL,
Magistrate Judge, in her individual
Capacity,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Marquise Miller, pro se, filed a civil action against Federal Magistrate Judge
Suzanne Mitchell, alleging claims arising out of Judge Mitchell’s handling, at the direction of
Chief District Judge DeGiusti, various non-dispositive matters during the pendency of Mr.
Miller’s civil action against Legacy Bank.1 (ECF No. 1.) Based upon absolute judicial
immunity, this Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss all claims (ECF No. 20) and on
November 24, 2025, entered judgment in Defendant’s favor. (ECF No. 21). Mr. Miller, once
again unwilling to accept a Court’s adverse rulings, has filed a “Combined Rule 59(e) Motion to
Alter or Amend Judgment and Rule 60(b)(1) & 60(b)(4) Motion for Relief from Judgment (With
Structural-Bias Evidence of Non-Random Assignment and JHealth Influence)” (ECF No. 22).
His motions will be denied.2
1 Miller v. Legacy Bank, Case No. CIV-20-946-D (W.D. Okla.) and affirmed by the Tenth Circuit on appeal at 2024 WL
5154002 (December 18, 2024) (hereinafter “Legacy Bank litigation”).
2 Mr. Miller has also filed a “Motion to Record and Correct Clerk’s (“ALW”) Unauthorized Alteration of Docket Entry and
Case 5:25-cv-00535-SWS Document 29 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
Standard of Review
1. 	Rule 59(e) Motion
A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) is
only granted to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence. Phelps v.
Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Committee for the First Amendment v.
Campbell, 962 F.2d 1517, 1523 (10th Cir.1992). Relief may be appropriate where “the court has
misapprehended facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.” Servance of the Paraclete v.
Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
2. 	Rule 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(4) Motion
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a court to relieve a party from a judgment
due to a “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” under (b)(1) or under (b)(4)
where “the judgment is void.” As with Rule 59(e), a Rule 60(b) motion is “not available to allow
a party merely to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the reargument
merely advances new arguments or supporting facts which were available for presentation at the
time of the original argument.” Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 577 (10th
Cir.1996).
Analysis
Plaintiff’s motion asserts that this Court’s order dismissing his case against Judge
Mitchell “contains clear errors on its face” and there are various failings and internal
inconsistencies which are “clear reversible error.” (ECF No. 22 at 2). Plaintiff also contends this
to Note Pattern of Ministerial Misconduct” (ECF No. 23). The Court will summarily deny this motion. The Clerk of Court
has properly filed, without alteration, the motions and papers submitted by Mr. Miller. The fact that the docket entry does not
quote Mr. Miller’s “captions” verbatim is neither misconduct nor unauthorized alteration.
Case 5:25-cv-00535-SWS Document 29 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
Court failed to analyze or improperly analyzed jurisdictional issues and other arguments raised
in his Complaint and response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff also suggests
“structural irregularities” (ECF No. 22 at 10-15) that this Court has addressed in its order
denying Mr. Miller’s request for disqualification. (ECF No. 26.) The alleged failings of this
Court’s analysis are many, but none involve matters properly raised or supported under either
Rules 59(e) or 60(b).
First, under Rule 59(e) Plaintiff contends “The Court Misapprehended the Complaint
(Rule 59(e))”. (ECF No. 22 at 8.) Plaintiff then goes on to identify various statements in his
Complaint (ECF No. 1) and this Court’s order dismissing his case (ECF No. 20) contending that
contradictions made in this Court’s order constitute “clear error.” Id. This Court does not
believe it misapprehended the facts, Plaintiff’s position, or the controlling law. Thus, Plaintiff is
not entitled to relief under Rule 59(e). See Servants of Paraclete v. Doe, 204 F.3d 1012.
Relief under Rule 60(b)(1) is dependent upon the party or their legal representative’s
“mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” See Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850,
856-57 (10th Cir. 2005)(court failed to properly consider Rule 60(b)(1) relief which is based
upon a party or their attorney’s mistake). To the extent this Court made a mistake or erred then
that is a matter for appeal and review by the Court of Appeals and not a proper basis for Rule
60(b)(1) relief.
Rule 60(b)(4) allows a judgment to be set aside where it is void. A judgment is void
“only if the court which rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or
acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.” In re Four Seasons Sec. Laws
Litig., 502 F.2d 834, 842 (10th Cir.1974). This Court clearly had subject matter and personal
Case 5:25-cv-00535-SWS Document 29 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
jurisdiction. Without citing any authority Plaintiff asserts “[b]ecause the Court dismissed
without resolving the jurisdictional issues in Doc. 1 [the Complaint], the judgment is void.”
(ECF No. 22 at 15.) A judgment is not void simply because the Court makes a mistake or its
ruling is erroneous. See U.S. v. Buck, 281 F.3d 1336, 1344 (10th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff has not
raised any issue concerning due process and even if he did there was not a lack of notice or
opportunity to be heard by a party so entitled. Id.
Conclusion
The alleged errors and deficiencies by this Court, according to Plaintiff, are many. His
remedy for these alleged deficiencies is to pursue an appeal. Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that this
Court failed to “determine jurisdiction first and apply immunity only after that determination is
made.” (ECF No. 22 at 2). It appears Plaintiff and this Court disagree over what “jurisdiction”
means or requires for absolute judicial immunity to apply. As Judge Watanabe summarized
better than I:
A judge is absolutely immune from suit for acts taken within his judicial capacity.
Whitesel v. Sengenberger, 222 F.3d 861, 867 (10th Cir.2000). To overcome
absolute judicial immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a judge's actions
were either outside the judge's judicial capacity or were taken in the complete
absence of all jurisdiction. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11–12 (1991) (per
curiam). A judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction only when he “acts
clearly without any colorable claim of jurisdiction.” Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d
673, 686 (10th Cir.1990). Here, even construing the plaintiff's allegations
liberally, all of the plaintiff claims against defendant Kimmel concern Judge
Kimmel's actions taken exclusively in his judicial capacity during the plaintiff's
trial and sentencing. Plaintiff seems to contend that the Judge conspired with the
other defendants to deny plaintiff a fair and unbiased trial, but judicial immunity
is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice by the judge. Mireles, 502
U.S. at 11. See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27 (1980) (judicial immunity not
overcome even where a claimant alleges a judge conspired with others). None of
the plaintiff's allegations overcome Judge Kimmel's absolute judicial immunity
because they do not demonstrate that he acted outside of his official capacity or in
the complete absence of jurisdiction. Plaintiff merely seems to disagree with the
Case 5:25-cv-00535-SWS Document 29 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
Judge's handling of the plaintiff's case as well as with the verdict and sentencing
imposed, but the claims raised by the plaintiff here do not overcome the absolute
judicial immunity. Therefore, plaintiff's claims against defendant Kimmel should
be dismissed with prejudice.
Lazarov. Kimmel, 2011 WL 588093 (D.Colo. Jan. 21, 2011). Most recently the Tenth Circuit
reiterated ‘“a judge may act in excess of his subject matter jurisdiction and still retain absolute
judicial immunity; only in the unusual circumstances of complete and clear absence of all
jurisdiction is absolute immunity inappropriate.’” Skellchock v. Dean, 2025 WL 1859820 (10th
Cir. July 7, 2025) (citing Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 686 (10th Cir. 1990). Even construing
Plaintiff’s factual allegations liberally, all claims against Judge Mitchell concern actions taken in
her judicial capacity for which she is absolutely immune from Plaintiff’s claims.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff’s Combined Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment and Rule 60(b)(1) & 60(b)(4) Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No.
22) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Record and Correct Clerk’s
Docket Entry (ECF No. 23) is DENIED.
Dated this 4th day of February 2026.
Scott W. Skavdahl
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00535-SWS Document 29 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 5