Lowery Wilkinson Lowery, LLC et al v. State of Illinois et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LOWERY WILKINSON LOWERY, LLC
ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	Case No. 25-CV-22-RAW
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Orders [Dkt. No. 271]. This is the third
motion Plaintiffs have filed seeking to vacate the Omnibus Order [Dkt. No. 181]. The first motion
was filed on August 15, 2025 [Dkt. No. 183]. The second was filed on July 14, 2026 [Dkt. No.
268]. Both prior motions advance scandalous, inflammatory, and frivolous factual allegations and
legal arguments that are repeated throughout the instant litigation. Additionally, since the court
entered the Omnibus Order, the same Plaintiffs have pursued two separate appeals, each of which
appears to essentially seek the same end of overturning this court’s ruling as outlined in the
Omnibus Order. 	One appeal, Lowery v. State of Illinois, No. 25-7070 (10th Cir. App. Sept. 4,
2025) was dismissed for failure to prosecute on June 5, 2026. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
is currently entertaining the Plaintiff/ appellants’ Motion to reinstate this appeal. Plaintiffs
additionally filed a second appeal Lowery v. State of Illinois, No. 26-7037 (10th Cir. App. May
29, 2026), that is pending.
6:25-cv-00022-RAW Document 272 Filed in ED/OK on 08/12/26 Page 1 of 2

Rule 60 (b) relief is extraordinary and should only be granted in exceptional circumstances.
Scherer v. Hill, 81 Fed. Appx. 995, 995 (10th Cir. 2003). 	In Gonzalez v. Crosby, the Supreme
Court held that “Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment under a limited set
of circumstances, including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence.” 545 U.S. 524, 125
S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005). Under Rule 60, “[i]t is not appropriate to revisit issues already
addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Id. (citing Van
Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991)).
The instant Motion is the Plaintiff’s third motion to vacate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.
In it, the Plaintiffs do not advance any arguments that suggest the exceptional relief offered by
Rule 60 is warranted. Because the motion is meritless and duplicative, it is DENIED.
Additionally, in the interest of conserving scarce judicial resources, the court will not
entertain any further motions to vacate while the appeals at the Tenth Circuit are still pending.
Additional motions filed in this vein will therefore be stricken.
Dated this 12th day of August, 2026.
6:25-cv-00022-RAW Document 272 Filed in ED/OK on 08/12/26 Page 2 of 2