United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration
filed by Plaintiff Frederick Banks on January 26, 2018 (Doc.
7). The Court will deny Banks' request for
Frederick Banks, a prisoner incarcerated at the Northeast
Ohio Correctional Facility in Youngstown, Ohio, has multiple
criminal convictions. See, e.g., United States v.
Banks, 582 Fed. App'x 86 (3rd Cir. 2014);
United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189
(3rdCir. 2006). Banks filed an Original Complaint
and an Amended Complaint asserting federal civil rights
claims for damages and a state-law claim for defamation
against the Federal Bureau of Investigation and several of
its Special Agents, the Central Intelligence Agency, several
United States Attorneys and Assistant United States
Attorneys, a private defense attorney, correctional officers
at FMC Butner in North Carolina, a United States District
Judge and the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. Banks sought damages in
amounts ranging from $55 million to $855 million. (Doc. 1 at
1, Doc. 2 at 1). Neither the Original Complaint nor the
Amended Complaint allege any conduct by any identified
individual occurring in or connected to New Mexico.
Court dismissed all claims alleged in Bank's Complaint
and entered Judgment on January 18, 2018. (Doc. 5, 6). The
Court concluded that it lacks jurisdiction over the
Defendants and claims, and the Original Complaint and Amended
Complaint are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for
relief, and seek monetary relief from Defendants that are
immune from such relief. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff Banks filed his
Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's dismissal on
January 26, 2018. (Doc. 7). Because Banks' Motion for
Reconsideration was filed within 28 days after entry of
Judgment, the Court will treat the Motion for Reconsideration
as a timely motion to alter or amend judgment under
warranting a motion to reconsider under Rule 59(e) include
(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new
evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Brumark
Corp. v. Samson Resources Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th
Cir.1995). A motion for reconsideration is proper where the
court has clearly misapprehended the facts, a party's
position, or the controlling law, but is not appropriate to
revisit issues already addressed in prior filings. See
Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th
Cir.1991); Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d
1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
Motion, Banks seeks reconsideration on several grounds. None
of Banks' arguments afford him a basis for relief under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). First, Banks claims that the Courts
determination that it lacks personal jurisdiction is
incorrect. Banks contends that “[t]he Court has
personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because the actions
occurred in New Mexico in this District via wireless signal
by satellite. Said signal originated in this District.”
(Doc. 7 at 1). Banks' wireless signal allegations are
patently frivolous and do not establish that any defendant
purposefully directed activities at residents of the forum,
or that the litigation results from alleged injuries that
arise out of or relate to those activities. Burger King
Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985).
Banks makes unsupported allegations that “Judge Hornak
stepped outside his jurisdiction in committing the violation
he has no judicial immunity.” (Doc. 7 at 2). However,
Banks' vague and factually insufficient allegations do
not defeat application of immunity in this case. Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978); Christensen
v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1473-76 (10th Cir.
1990). Banks does not establish any basis for reconsideration
of the Court's immunity ruling. Van Skiver, 952
F.2d at 1243.
Banks argues that the Court erred in ruling that his mandamus
and civil rights claims do not state any plausible claim for
relief. (Doc. 7 at 1, ¶ 3, and 2, ¶ 5). Banks'
assertions are no more than an attempt to reargue the issues
raised in his Complaint and Amended Complaint. As the Court
has already determined, the Original and Amended Complaints
do not specify any clear right of the plaintiff to mandamus
relief, do not identify a plainly defined and preemptory duty
on the part of any defendant, and do not address the adequacy
or availability of any other remedy. Wilder v. Prokop,
Wilder v. Prokop, 846 F.2d 613, 620 (10th Cir.1988). Nor
does Banks sufficiently plead any plausible claim of
violation of Banks' civil rights. Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Banks'
arguments do not afford any basis for this Court to
reconsider its rulings. Van Skiver v. United States,
952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991); Servants of
Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
Banks also contends that the Court's Judgment is void and
must be set aside under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4). Banks alleges
that he is “civilly committed” and was found
incompetent to represent himself, making the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915 inapplicable to him. (Doc. 7 at 1).
Banks' allegations, which are contradicted by the public
court records of his multiple convictions, are insufficient
to establish that he is civilly committed rather than an
incarcerated prisoner. See United States v. Banks,
572 Fed.Appx. 162, 163 (3d Cir. 2014); Banks v.
Song, No. CIV-17-813-C, 2017 WL 3910779, at *2 (W.D.
Okla. Aug. 3, 2017), report and recommendation adopted
sub nom. Banks v. Soo Song, No. CIV-17-813-C, 2017 WL
3908922 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 6, 2017). Compare Merryfield v.
Jordan, 584 F.3d 923, 924 (10th Cir. 2009). Moreover,
Bank's claim that he is a civil committee was available
to him, but was not raised until after Judgment was entered,
and does not serve as a basis for reconsideration.
Brumark Corp. v. Samson Resources Corp., 57 F.3d at
948. The Court's Judgment is not void based on Banks'
unsupported assertions. See Powell v. Symons, 680
F.3d 301 (3rd Cir. 2012) (court may dismiss
allegedly incompetent plaintiff's complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915); Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4).
Banks does not establish any basis for the Court to
reconsider its rulings under Rule 59(e). The Court properly
dismissed Banks' Complaint and Amended Complaint as
mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Banks has not shown
any change in the law, previously unavailable evidence, or
need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
See Brumark Corp. v. Samson Resources Corp., 57 F.3d
941, 948 (10th Cir.1995). Nor does Banks establish that the
Court's Judgment is void under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4).
Banks Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.
IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration filed
by Plaintiff Frederick Banks on ...