Tenth Circuit Reviews Denial of Pro Se Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) Motion

In Sullivan v. Graham, Nos. 24-3113 & 3114, 2025 WL 2945820 (10th Cir. Oct. 17, 2025), the Tenth Circuit examined two related appeals from a pro se plaintiff arising from separate cases. The appeals challenged the United State District Court for the District of Kansas’s denial of relief from judgment motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and denial of a motion to appoint counsel. The Tenth Circuit ultimately dismissed the appeals finding them to be frivolous attempts to reargue his dismissed claims. FPS&S Topeka attorney David R. Cooper represented the Defendant – Appellees Honorable Paul Gurney, Honorable Lawton Nuss, Honorable Lee Johnson, and Honorable Kevin Moriarty in No. 24-3114.

Both Sullivan cases are nearly identical in their facts and procedural history. These appeals are yet another chapter in what the Tenth Circuit has previously described as “Mr. Sullivan’s wide-ranging litigation efforts relating to workplace injury in January 2012.” Sullivan v. Graham, No. 23-3153, 2025 WL 1983231 (10th Cir. July 17, 2025) (citing Sullivan v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp. Inc., Nos. 22-3118 & 22-3193, 2023 WL 4635888, at *1 (10th Cir. July 20, 2023) (affirming dismissal of “two lawsuits against numerous defendants, whom he claims conspired against him to deny medical treatment”)). In this instance, the plaintiff filed complaints almost one hundred pages in length alleging conspiracy, fraud, and other similar claims against more than forty defendants. Id. at *1-2. In each case, after receiving instructions to file an amended complaint under forty pages, plaintiff filed amended complaints adding new defendants and far exceeding the limit, with one being close to 200 pages. Id. The district court dismissed the new defendants and instructed the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint under fifty pages. Id. Once again, the second amended complaints filed were over one hundred pages long, but they were accompanied by a motion to exceed page limitations that was subsequently denied. Id. In both cases, the district court dismissed the federal claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, declined exercises supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, and subsequently denied plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) requesting counsel be appointed. Id. After the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of lawsuit, the plaintiff brought Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions to the district court that was denied and subsequently appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Sullivan, 2025 WL 2945820, at *1 (citing Sullivan, 2025 WL 198323).

The Tenth Circuit in Sullivan first considered a motion to dismiss brought by the MVP Appellees, which argued that the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motions were untimely thus, making the Notices of Appeal untimely as well. The Court found the Notices of Appeal were timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) as they were filed within thirty days of the district court’s order denying the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion. Sullivan, 2025 WL 2945820, at *1 (citing Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir. 2000) (“An appeal from a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion addresses only the district court’s order denying the motion, and not the underlying decision itself.”)).

The Court then considered the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motions themselves. The standard of review for the district court’s denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motions and denial of appointment of counsel is abuse of discretion. As granting relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is “an extraordinary remedial procedure,” the reviewing court is limited to determining whether the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is an abuse of discretion. Id. at *2 (internal citation and quotation omitted). Additionally, “[t]he decision whether to appoint counsel for a pro se litigant in a civil case is, likewise, ‘a matter within the discretion of the district court,’ and ‘[t]he burden is upon the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to warrant the appointment of counsel.” Id. (citing McCarthy v. Weinberg, 752 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985)). The Tenth Circuit found that the arguments made in the plaintiff’s appeals were “attempts to reargue the merits of his previously dismissed claims,” which “is improper as a basis for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.” Id. (citing Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012). As a result, the Tenth Circuit concluded the plaintiff’s appeals to be frivolous and dismissed the appeals under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Pro se plaintiffs have become more widespread in litigation practice. As with Sullivan, pro se litigants can file numerous suits arising from one occurrence that span years. Understanding the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and rules regarding appointment of counsel in civil matters can ease the litigation process.