govinfo:USCOURTS-ksd-6_12-cv-01032-4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 
 
ARTHUR D. BARNES, 
 
 Plainti
ff, 
 
 
 
 vs. Case No. 12-CV-1032-EFM-BGS 
 
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS, INC., 
 
 De
fendant. 
 
 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 This matter comes before th e Court on Plaintiff Arthur D. Barnes’ Motion under Rule 
60(b)(4) (Doc. 89). This is Plaintiff’s third Motion seeking to alter or amend the Court’s judgment 
in this long-concluded case.1 The Court most recently issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s motion 
for relief under Rule 60(b)(4) in October 2025. In that Order, the Court discouraged Plaintiff from 
filing similar Rule 60(b) motions in the future. Plaintiff, however, ignored the Court’s advice and 
instead filed the instant Motion, asserting the same arguments and seeking th e same relief as set 
forth in his previous motion. Agai n, Plaintiff fails to establish any valid ba sis for Rule 60(b)(4) 
relief. 
 
1 The Court granted summary judgment in Defendant’s favor, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the Court’s 
ruling, in 2013. See Barnes v. Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. , 533 Fed. App’x 851, 2013 WL 5495883 (10th Cir. Oct. 4, 
2013). 

 
-2- 
 Relief from final judgment under Rule 60(b) is an “extraordinary remedial procedure.”2 
“For a judgment to be void under Rule 60(b)(4), it must be determined that the rendering court 
was powerless to enter it.” 3 Relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is granted “in the rare instance where a 
judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process 
that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.”4 
 Plaintiff’s current Motion does not offer any new information or evidence that differs from 
his previous motion. He again argues that the Court “improperly excluded . . . key evidence” and 
denied him his “constitutional right to present . . . evidence.” Plaintiff th en argues that the Court 
erred in granting summary judgment to Defendant because it did not consider this “key evidence” 
in its decision. 
 Plaintiff’s arguments are simply an attempt to relitigate the merits of his claims. “A 
‘successive Rule 60(b) motion’ is an ‘inappropria te vehicle[ ] to reargue an issue previously 
addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments , or supporting facts 
which were available at the time of the original motion.’”
5 Plaintiff relies solely on facts that were 
available at the time of the original summa ry judgment motion. He does not provide any new 
 
2 Choice Hospice, Inc. v. Axxess Tech. Sols., Inc., 125 F.4th 1000, 1011 (10th Cir. 2025) (quoting V.T.A., Inc. 
v. Airco, Inc., 597 F.2d 220, 223 n.7 (10th Cir. 1979)). 
3 Id. at 1014 (quoting V.T.A., 597 F.2d at 224). 
4 Id. (quoting United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010)). 
5 Choice Hospice, 125 F.4th at 1011 (quoting Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 
2000)). 

 
-3- 
information showing that he was denied due pr ocess or that the Court was powerless to grant 
summary judgment in this matter. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(4) Motion.6 
 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion under Rule 60(b)(4) (Doc. 89) 
is DENIED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 Dated this 3rd day of June, 2026. 
 
 
 E R I C F . M E L G R E N 
 U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T J U D G E 
 
6 The Court understands that Plaintiff is unhappy with the outcome of his case. However, repeatedly filing 
the same Rule 60(b) motion will not produce a different result, and it is unduly burdensome for the Court. Therefore, 
the Court once again strongly discourages Plaintiff from filing a similar Rule 60(b) motion in the future. 

Passage view · GavelSight