United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
JEFFREY L.G. JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN R. CLARK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
closed civil matter is before the Court on post-judgment
motions filed by self-represented Plaintiffs Jeffrey L.G.
Johnson and Joseph Johnson. These are Plaintiffs'
“Motion to Reconsider Motion to Set-Aside Order and
Judgment Motion to Recuse Motion for Appointment of
Master” ; Plaintiffs' “Motion to Compel
Discovery and Proposed Order Compelling Defendant Produce
Documents” directed to United States Attorney Jeffrey
B. Jensen , St. Louis County Counselor Beth Orwick ,
and Clerk of Court Gregory J. Linhares ; and
Plaintiffs' “Motion Amending to Add Defendant
Failure to Issue Pretrial Conference Order” which seeks
to add United States District Judge Ronnie L. White as a
defendant in this case . For the following reasons, these
motions will be denied.
filed this action on August 9, 2019 and paid the filing fee.
The Complaint is 84 pages long and names 200 defendants as
well as “Unknown Does.” The defendants include
many high-level government officials, including the current
and former presidents of the United States, current and
former justices of the Supreme Court, U.S. House and Senate
leaders, the U.S. Department of Justice and certain of its
officials, various federal agencies and certain of their
directors and employees; current and former Eighth Circuit,
Federal Circuit and District of Columbia Circuit judges,
District of Columbia federal judges, other federal courts and
judges, and most of the judges of this Court; the Social
Security Administration, its commissioner and some of its
judges and administrators; the State of Missouri, its current
and one former governor, the Missouri Attorney General's
Office and personnel, the Missouri General Assembly, Missouri
Supreme Court and certain judges thereof; St. Louis County,
Missouri, and some county officials, the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County; the City of St. Louis, the St. Louis Circuit
Attorney's Office, the St. Louis City Medical
Examiner's Office, the St. Louis City Circuit
Court/Probate Division and certain judges and former judges
thereof; the Vatican; and the presidents and/or CEOs of
Federal Express Corporation, AT&T Communications, Verizon
Communications, Charter Communication, Angelica Corporation.
Some of the named defendants are deceased.
of the defendants filed dispositive motions. By Memorandum
and Order of December 19, 2019, the Court addressed the
merits of each pending motion and dismissed Plaintiffs'
Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted and as frivolous. The Memorandum
and Order described Plaintiffs' litigation history in
this Court. After a careful review of the Complaint, the
Court on its own motion dismissed all remaining claims in
Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice on the basis it was
patently obvious Plaintiffs could not prevail based on the
facts alleged in the Complaint and because the Complaint was
frivolous. The Court also denied Plaintiffs' motions for
entry of clerk's default and for default judgment and
other miscellaneous motions.
Motion to Reconsider
filed a “Motion to Reconsider Motion to Set-Aside Order
and Judgment Motion to Recuse Motion for Appointment of
Master.” The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
authorize a motion to reconsider. Humphreys v. Roche
Biomedical Labs., Inc., 990 F.2d 1078, 1081 (8th Cir.
1993). Where a motion to reconsider is made in response to a
final order, as here, it should be construed as a motion
under Rule 59(e). Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d
818, 827 (8th Cir. 2000).
courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a
motion under Rule 59(e). Innovative Home Health Care,
Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d
1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998). Rule 59(e) was adopted to clarify
that “the district court possesses the power to rectify
its own mistakes in the period immediately following the
entry of judgment.” White v. New Hampshire
Dep't of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982)
(internal quotations omitted). “Rule 59(e) motions
serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440
F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Such motions cannot be used to introduce new
evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which
could have been offered or raised prior to entry of
judgment.” Id. (quoting Innovative Home
Health Care, 141 F.3d at 1286)).
assert that the undersigned district judge failed to disclose
he was a defendant in an unrelated civil rights lawsuit in
this Court at the time the Memorandum and Order was entered
in this case and, as a result, “to a reasonable person
there is the potential for judicial bias, impropriety . . .,
or lack of impartiality.” Doc. 53, pg. 1. Plaintiffs
also assert the potential for impartiality because other
judges of this Court were named as defendants. The case
Plaintiffs cite was dismissed on December 5, 2019 as
frivolous, malicious, and part of a pattern of abusive and
repetitious lawsuits. See Cox v. Clark, No.
4:19-CV-3175 AGF (E.D. Mo. Dec. 5, 2019). Plaintiffs'
assertions do not offer a legitimate basis for the
undersigned's recusal from this case or a basis for
assert numerous other complaints and objections regarding the
manner in which the Court addressed their Complaint and the
dispositive motions, dismissed their case, and refused to
enter default judgments. These complaints and objections are
frivolous. None of the matters asserted by Plaintiffs
establish their entitlement to relief under Rule 59(e)
because Plaintiffs do not point to any manifest errors of law
or fact or any newly discovery evidence. Plaintiffs'
motion is denied.
Post-Dismissal Motion for Leave to Amend
“Motion Amending to Add Defendant Failure to Issue
Pretrial Conference Order” seeks to add Judge Ronnie L.
White as a defendant in this action due to “continuing
violation doctrine denial to privileges and immunities under
color of federal law due process deprivation Fifth
Amendment.” Doc. 57, pg. 1. Plaintiffs complain that
prior to recusing himself from this action, Judge White was
required to but did not issue a pretrial conference order
under Rule 16(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Court construes this motion as a post-dismissal motion for
leave to file an amended complaint. Post-dismissal motions
for leave to amend are disfavored, United States ex rel.
Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc., 559 F.3d 818, 824 (8th Cir.
2009), and are inappropriate where, as here, the Court
dismissed the entire action with prejudice, thus indicating
no amendment was possible. See Mountain Home Flight
Serv., Inc. v. Baxter Cnty., Ark., 758 F.3d 1038, 1045
(8th Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs' proposed claims against
Judge White are legally frivolous and would be barred by
absolute judicial immunity because they concern judicial acts
in a case over which Judge White and this Court had
jurisdiction. “A judge is absolutely immune from
liability for his judicial ...