Opinion
22-3195-JWL
10-10-2023
JAMES BRENT WATTS, Petitioner, v. LUCIFER, et al., Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter was dismissed without prejudice on September 13, 2022, because it was substantively identical to an already pending § 2254 petition also filed by Petitioner. (See Doc. 3.) Petitioner has since filed multiple motions for reconsideration and for additional orders that comply with and enforce his religious beliefs. (Docs. 5, 7, 12, and 15.) The Court has denied the motions, explaining in detail the reasons for the denials. (Docs. 6, 8, 14, 16.) In late July 2023, Petitioner filed a document titled “I Canot be Denied Anything at All, I am Thee Exciption to Any and r. All Laws and or Rules . . . so Ridu, Anything and r Everything I Wont Must be Granted and r Jranted . . . ” (Doc. 17, p. 4 (ellipses and all errors in original).) That document is hereinafter referred to as “the July 2023 filing.”
The body of the July 2023 filing stated:
Comes Now . . . James B. Watts . . . by and through myself Pro-Se and tel this Court I Canot be Denied Anything at All, I Am Thee Exciption to Any and r All Laws and r Rules . . . so Ridu, Anything and Everything I Wont Must be Granted and R. Jranted . . .
I Am thee One and Only Celestial Song of Gud, God, Ged, Gad, Gid . . . and I canot be denied anything and r nothing, at all, by thee Laws of thee Hevuns and r Laws of thee Universe, enforced by my Anjels (a, i, o, u) and r Anjles (a, i, o, u) and r Angels (a, i, o, u) and r Angles (a, i, o, u) of thee Hevuns and r Universe . . . I get anything and r everything I wont in entirety our my Anjels . . . and r Angels
. . . come here and get it for me . . . Anything and r everything I wont I well take by fource and r I well kill anything and r everything that stands in my way . . .
There are now Laws and r Rules that apply to me tu keep me in anyway at all from anything and r everything I wont . . . there is now man, woman, our child that well stand against me and live tu tel about et . . . I well get my Anjels . . . and r Angels . . . here and get my Venjence (a, i, o, u) and r Vengence (a, i, o, u) and r Justice (a, e, o, u) and r Gustice (a, e, o, u) wath any and r all . . . I well soon (u) have my complete and r total power and r authourity ouver my mourning (j) star administratian (e, i, o, u) thee base for my Anjels . . . and r Angels . . . tu sorve me from, here un earth . . .
Wherefor I tel this Court I Canot be Denied Anything at All, I am Thee Exciption to Any and r All Laws and r Rules . . . so Ridu, Anything and r Everything I Wont Must be Granted and r Jranted . . .(Doc. 17, p. 4-6 (ellipses and all errors in original).) The Court directed that the July 2023 filing be filed as a notice and it took no action, as the July 2023 filing did not request action by the Court.
On October 6, 2023, the Court received from Petitioner a motion asking the Court to liberally construe the July 2023 filing as a motion to alter and/or amend the judgment, a request to reopen this matter and proceed on the petition, and a notice that Petitioner is now committed to Larned State Hospital. (Doc. 19.) Therein, Petitioner reiterates that he is the King of all creation and he must get anything and everything he needs and wants. Id. at 4-6.
The motion will be denied. As previously explained to Petitioner, motions to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 must be filed within 28 days after the entry of judgment. (See Doc. 14, p. 2.) Judgment in this case was entered on September 13, 2022, and Petitioner did not submit the July 2023 filing until July 24, 2023. (See Doc. 19, p. 7.) “[A] court may not extend the time to act under Rule 59(e).” Solidfx, LLC v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc., 823 Fed.Appx. 559, 568 n. 4 (10th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). Thus, if construed as a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment, the July 2023 filing was untimely.
In addition, even if the July 2023 filing is liberally construed to seek relief under Rule 60(b), which has a more lenient timeline for filing, it does not identify the type of circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b) and which have already been identified for Petitioner. (See Doc. 14, p. 2-3.) Even liberally construing both the July 2023 filing and the motion received on October 6, 2023, Petitioner has not identified any legal reason for the Court to reconsider its previous rulings, reopen this matter, or otherwise alter the judgment. Thus, there is no need to liberally construe the July 2023 filing. If Petitioner files additional motions in this case that seek similar relief, they will be summarily denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's motion to liberally construe his prior filing as one to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 19) is denied. This case remains closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.