Opinion
Case No. 03-1170-JTM
December 29, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On October 30, 2003, the court entered its order finding that the liens which defendant Williams Earl Packard had caused to be filed with the Kansas Secretary of State were illegal and void. The court granted the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff United States, and directed the Secretary of State to remove and expunge the illegal lien. (Dkt. No. 20). This matter is before the court on three motions. First, defendant Secretary of State has moved to alter and amend the court's order. (Dkt. No. 18). Second, Packard has filed a "Motion to Discharge Void Judgment." (Dkt. No. 21). Shortly after this motion was filed, Packard submitted a "Motion to Amend (typographical errors and define for clarity) and Add Points of Law/Fact/Inquiries" (Dkt. No. 24) and add points. The pending motions are denied.
Whether viewed independently, or through the prism of his latter, putatively clarifying motion, Packard's latest pro se submissions to the court provide neither intelligible argument nor any substantive basis for altering the court's previous orders. In fact, Packard's submissions reflect simply a continuation of the same arguments previously submitted to (Dkt. Nos. 3, 5, 6, 10, 14), and rejected by, this court. For the reasons stated previously in the court's order of October 30, defendant Packard's motions are denied.
Defendant Secretary of State was expressly served with process with respect to the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. See Dkt. No. 11 (September 2, 2003 return of process execution, reflecting personal service executed on the Secretary on August 13, 2003). The Secretary subsequently filed an answer to the complaint filed by the United States. (Dkt. No. 15). The United States did not file its motion for summary judgment until September 17. Contrary to the suggestion of the Secretary that it was unaware of the expungement relief sought by the United States, that relief is explicitly included in the government's motion. (Dkt. No. 12, at 2-3). The court did not rule on the United States' request for injunctive relief until several weeks after the Secretary's answer. There is no merit to the suggestion that the Secretary should not have known of the relief sought by the United States, or that the Secretary has not been accorded due process in the present action.
The Secretary also argues that expungement is contrary to Kansas law. However, statutes such as KSA 84-9-519(g) only provide a limitation on the ability of the Secretary to remove liens in case of lapsed financing statements; they provide no positive limitation on the ability of this court to grant the requested relief. While the court agrees that the Secretary has an important interest in maintaining the system property interest records authorized by Kansas law, this interest does not include maintaining within that system documents which have been found by a court to be utterly ineffective, illegal, and void. Such abusive filings erode, not advance, the integrity of the system entrusted to the Secretary. The court can find no statutory basis for concluding that the Secretary is prohibited from complying with the order of the court. Further, since the Secretary, acting subject to the court's order, is performing a ministerial function, the immunity recognized in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) is inapplicable.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 29th day of December, 2003, that the defendants' motion to alter and amend (Dkt. No. 18), to discharge (Dkt. No. 21), and to amend or clarify (Dkt. No. 24) are hereby denied.