Bey v. Midwest City City of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ALI ALI-BEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-828-G
)
CITY OF MIDWEST CITY )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
In August of 2024, Plaintiff Ali Ali-Bey filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc.
No. 1), bringing claims against Defendants City of Midwest City, David Howell, Vicki
Floyd, and Brodie Bolen.
On February 18, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10) with a
supporting Brief (Doc. No. 11). The Motion sought dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant
to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
document represented that Plaintiff was served with the Motion via U.S. Mail sent to
Plaintiff’s address of record. See Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 5.
Although the Court allowed approximately six months for Plaintiff to respond,
Plaintiff did not file a response to the Motion to Dismiss or otherwise contact the Court.
Therefore, on August 12, 2025, the Court took up the Motion to Dismiss and found that
Plaintiff had effectively conceded the propriety of dismissal by failing to oppose
Defendants’ request. See Order of Aug. 12, 2025 (Doc. No. 13) at 1. The Court also
deemed the factual representations made in the Motion to Dismiss confessed pursuant to
Case 5:24-cv-00828-G Document 20 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 3

2
the Court’s local rules. See id.; LCvR 7.1(g). The Court therefore granted the unopposed
Motion to Dismiss and entered a judgment of dismissal without prejudice. See Order of
Aug. 12, 2025, at 1; J. (Doc. No. 14) at 1.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 15). In
his Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court’s Judgment be set aside pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6) to allow Petitioner to again seek relief in this case
via an attached amended complaint (Doc. No. 15-1). See Pl.’s Mot. at 1-2.
“A motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b) is left almost entirely up to the
discretion of the trial court.” Greenwood Expls., Ltd. v. Merit Gas & Oil Corp., 837 F.2d
423, 426 (10th Cir. 1988). Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), a court may relieve a party from a
judgment based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b)(1). Subsections (2) through (5) specify other potential bases for relief, and then
the Rule prescribes in subsection (6) that the court also may relieve a party for “any other
reason that justifies relief.” Id. R. 60(b)(6). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is “difficult to
attain,” Davis v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 507 F.3d 1246, 1248 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal
quotation marks omitted), and is appropriate only “when circumstances are so unusual or
compelling that extraordinary relief is warranted, or when it offends justice to deny such
relief,” Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 580 (10th Cir. 1996) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Having considered Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court finds no basis for reconsideration
of its prior disposition. Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s vague reference to “[m]edical
emergency, [o]ther court proceeding, and being [f]alsely arrested again” fails to show any
Case 5:24-cv-00828-G Document 20 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 3

3
error or misapprehension by the Court or any excusable neglect by Plaintiff. Pl.’s Mot. at
1; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Nor does Plaintiff establish unusual or compelling
circumstances or any other ground that justifies reopening this matter. See Pl.’s Mot. at 1;
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Further, Plaintiff’s assertion that he acted “promptly” is belied
by the record in this case, which reflects that he did not respond to the Motion to Dismiss
or otherwise contact the Court until after the dismissal had been entered months later. Pl.’s
Mot. at 1.
It follow that, even liberally construed, Plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to
relief under Rule 60(b)(1) or (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nor does the
Motion show that dismissal of this matter, which was imposed without prejudice to
Plaintiff re-raising his claims by filing a new lawsuit, constituted “clear error” or “manifest
injustice.” Servants of the Paracletes v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 15) is
DENIED. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Correction of Name (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED. The Court
of Clerk is hereby directed to update the case docket and caption to reflect that Plaintiff’s
full name is “Ali Ali-Bey.”
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:24-cv-00828-G Document 20 Filed 03/11/26 Page 3 of 3