Appellate Case: 24-3113 Document: 64 Date Filed: 10/17/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 17, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court SCOTT B. SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 24-3113 (D.C. No. 2:22-CV-02319-SRB) JOHN M. GRAHAM, JR.; MELINDA (D. Kan.) YOUNG; DAVID CLYMER; CARONDELET ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS; EDWARD PROSTIC; DR. PROSTIC’S PRACTICE; JOHNSON COUNTY IMAGING RADIOLOGIST; JOHNSON COUNTY IMAGING; STEVEN G. PILAND; THE STEVEN G. PILAND LAW FIRM; MATTHEW L. BRETZ; THE LAW FIRM OF BRETZ & YOUNG; TIM ELLIOT; ELLIOT LAW FIRM; KENNETH HURSH; JERRY SHELOR; THE LAW FIRM OF MCANANY, VAN CLEAVE AND PHILLIPS; GREG GOHEEN,
Defendants - Appellees.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
SCOTT B. SULLIVAN,
v. No. 24-3114 (D.C. No. 2:22-CV-02491-SRB) THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL (D. Kan.) SERVICES GROUP, INC.; CAROL MORRIS; LADUSKA ANNE HANEY; ZEKE DELGADO; MIKE FISKE; TWIN CITIES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY; UNITED Appellate Case: 24-3113 Document: 64 Date Filed: 10/17/2025 Page: 2
STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY; UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS; CONCENTRA; TEGUMSEN WAKWAYA; PREMIER SPINE CARE; JOHN CICCARELLI; AMY SLESKY; ST. LUKE’S SOUTH PRIMARY CARE; STEPHEN NOLKER; DAVID CYMER; EDWARD PROSTIC; JOHNSON COUNTY IMAGING; JOHN M. GRAHAM, JR.; THE STEVEN G. PILAND LAW FIRM; STEVEN G. PILAND; MELINDA YOUNG; MATTHEW BRETZ; THE LAW FIRM OF BRETZ & YOUNG; TIM ELLIOT; THE TIM ELLIOT LAW FIRM; GREG GOHEEN; DARRYL WYNN; JODI FOX; HONORABLE KENNETH HURSH; HONORABLE JERRY SHELOR; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS; HONORABLE KATHERYN VRATIL; HONORABLE ANGEL D. MITCHELL; NEBRASKA FURNITURE MART; HONORABLE PAUL C. GURNEY; HONORABLE LAWTON NUSS; HONORABLE LEE JOHNSON; HONORABLE KEVIN MORIARTY; ONFORCE; WORKMARKET; HONORABLE THERESA JAMES; HONORABLE RACHEL SCHWARTZ; HONORABLE JULIE A. ROBINSON; MCANANY, VAN CLEAVE & PHILLIPS, P.A.,
2 Appellate Case: 24-3113 Document: 64 Date Filed: 10/17/2025 Page: 3
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
Before MATHESON, CARSON, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
In these two related appeals, Scott Sullivan, proceeding pro se, 1 seeks to
challenge the district court’s denial of motions he made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) to set aside adverse judgments the district court entered on July 26 and July 27,
2023. He also challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to appoint counsel
for him. The underlying adverse judgments were final when this court affirmed
them, see Sullivan v. Graham, Nos. 23-3153, 23-3154, 2025 WL 1983231
(10th Cir. July 17, 2025) (per curiam) (unpublished). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, but we dismiss these appeals as frivolous under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Because we have previously set forth the underlying facts and procedural
history underlying these appeals, see Sullivan, 2025 WL 1983231, at *1–2, we need
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 Because Mr. Sullivan proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments liberally, but we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
3 Appellate Case: 24-3113 Document: 64 Date Filed: 10/17/2025 Page: 4
not do so at any great length again here. After the district court dismissed his
underlying lawsuits, and after this court had initially 2 affirmed that dismissal,
Mr. Sullivan brought a motion before the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60
seeking relief from judgment. In this motion, Mr. Sullivan “ask[ed] the Federal
judges to all admit that [they] were wrong and grant [him] relief from judgment
under Rule 60.” R. (24-3114) at 809.
The district court denied the motion, analyzing it under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(2) and (b)(6), the only two subsections that “appear to possibly apply,”
R. (24-3114) at 825. The court found Mr. Sullivan “point[ed] to no new evidence in
his motion” that would entitle him to relief under Rule 60(b)(2) given the previous
dismissal was (in part) for failure to adequately plead a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
R. (24-3114) at 826. The court further concluded Mr. Sullivan was not entitled to
relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his motion “appears to largely reiterate the same
assertions that were raised and rejected previously in this case.” R. (24-3114) at 826.
The court also denied Mr. Sullivan’s request to appoint him counsel, considering and
accounting for “the merits of [Mr. Sullivan’s] claims, the nature of the factual issues
raised in the claims, [his] ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal
issues raised by the claims.” Id. at 827 (internal quotation marks omitted).
2 This court entered an Order and Judgment affirming the judgments of the district court on May 17, 2024, but, on July 17, 2025, it vacated that Order and Judgment because of a subsequently discovered need to recuse by one of the panel members. With a newly constituted panel, the court again affirmed the judgments of the district court.
4 Appellate Case: 24-3113 Document: 64 Date Filed: 10/17/2025 Page: 5
These appeals followed.
We first consider the motion to dismiss brought by Defendants Deryl Wynn;
Jodi Fox; and McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, P.A. (the “MVP Appellees”). The
MVP Appellees point out that Mr. Sullivan filed Notices of Appeal in these cases
well after thirty days from the district court’s initial entries of judgment on July 26
and July 27, 2023. They argue further that the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motions were
untimely and therefore did not modify the Fed. R. App. P. 4 deadline for filing a
notice of appeal. While these arguments are well-taken with respect to the
underlying judgment, the Notices of Appeal were filed within thirty days of the
district court’s order denying the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion, and so are timely under
Fed. R. App. P.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 24-3113 Document: 64 Date Filed: 10/17/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 17, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court SCOTT B. SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 24-3113 (D.C. No. 2:22-CV-02319-SRB) JOHN M. GRAHAM, JR.; MELINDA (D. Kan.) YOUNG; DAVID CLYMER; CARONDELET ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS; EDWARD PROSTIC; DR. PROSTIC’S PRACTICE; JOHNSON COUNTY IMAGING RADIOLOGIST; JOHNSON COUNTY IMAGING; STEVEN G. PILAND; THE STEVEN G. PILAND LAW FIRM; MATTHEW L. BRETZ; THE LAW FIRM OF BRETZ & YOUNG; TIM ELLIOT; ELLIOT LAW FIRM; KENNETH HURSH; JERRY SHELOR; THE LAW FIRM OF MCANANY, VAN CLEAVE AND PHILLIPS; GREG GOHEEN,
Defendants - Appellees.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
SCOTT B. SULLIVAN,
v. No. 24-3114 (D.C. No. 2:22-CV-02491-SRB) THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL (D. Kan.) SERVICES GROUP, INC.; CAROL MORRIS; LADUSKA ANNE HANEY; ZEKE DELGADO; MIKE FISKE; TWIN CITIES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY; UNITED Appellate Case: 24-3113 Document: 64 Date Filed: 10/17/2025 Page: 2
STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY; UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS; CONCENTRA; TEGUMSEN WAKWAYA; PREMIER SPINE CARE; JOHN CICCARELLI; AMY SLESKY; ST. LUKE’S SOUTH PRIMARY CARE; STEPHEN NOLKER; DAVID CYMER; EDWARD PROSTIC; JOHNSON COUNTY IMAGING; JOHN M. GRAHAM, JR.; THE STEVEN G. PILAND LAW FIRM; STEVEN G. PILAND; MELINDA YOUNG; MATTHEW BRETZ; THE LAW FIRM OF BRETZ & YOUNG; TIM ELLIOT; THE TIM ELLIOT LAW FIRM; GREG GOHEEN; DARRYL WYNN; JODI FOX; HONORABLE KENNETH HURSH; HONORABLE JERRY SHELOR; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS; HONORABLE KATHERYN VRATIL; HONORABLE ANGEL D. MITCHELL; NEBRASKA FURNITURE MART; HONORABLE PAUL C. GURNEY; HONORABLE LAWTON NUSS; HONORABLE LEE JOHNSON; HONORABLE KEVIN MORIARTY; ONFORCE; WORKMARKET; HONORABLE THERESA JAMES; HONORABLE RACHEL SCHWARTZ; HONORABLE JULIE A. ROBINSON; MCANANY, VAN CLEAVE & PHILLIPS, P.A.,
2 Appellate Case: 24-3113 Document: 64 Date Filed: 10/17/2025 Page: 3
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
Before MATHESON, CARSON, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
In these two related appeals, Scott Sullivan, proceeding pro se, 1 seeks to
challenge the district court’s denial of motions he made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) to set aside adverse judgments the district court entered on July 26 and July 27,
2023. He also challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to appoint counsel
for him. The underlying adverse judgments were final when this court affirmed
them, see Sullivan v. Graham, Nos. 23-3153, 23-3154, 2025 WL 1983231
(10th Cir. July 17, 2025) (per curiam) (unpublished). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, but we dismiss these appeals as frivolous under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Because we have previously set forth the underlying facts and procedural
history underlying these appeals, see Sullivan, 2025 WL 1983231, at *1–2, we need
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 Because Mr. Sullivan proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments liberally, but we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
3 Appellate Case: 24-3113 Document: 64 Date Filed: 10/17/2025 Page: 4
not do so at any great length again here. After the district court dismissed his
underlying lawsuits, and after this court had initially 2 affirmed that dismissal,
Mr. Sullivan brought a motion before the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60
seeking relief from judgment. In this motion, Mr. Sullivan “ask[ed] the Federal
judges to all admit that [they] were wrong and grant [him] relief from judgment
under Rule 60.” R. (24-3114) at 809.
The district court denied the motion, analyzing it under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(2) and (b)(6), the only two subsections that “appear to possibly apply,”
R. (24-3114) at 825. The court found Mr. Sullivan “point[ed] to no new evidence in
his motion” that would entitle him to relief under Rule 60(b)(2) given the previous
dismissal was (in part) for failure to adequately plead a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
R. (24-3114) at 826. The court further concluded Mr. Sullivan was not entitled to
relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his motion “appears to largely reiterate the same
assertions that were raised and rejected previously in this case.” R. (24-3114) at 826.
The court also denied Mr. Sullivan’s request to appoint him counsel, considering and
accounting for “the merits of [Mr. Sullivan’s] claims, the nature of the factual issues
raised in the claims, [his] ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal
issues raised by the claims.” Id. at 827 (internal quotation marks omitted).
2 This court entered an Order and Judgment affirming the judgments of the district court on May 17, 2024, but, on July 17, 2025, it vacated that Order and Judgment because of a subsequently discovered need to recuse by one of the panel members. With a newly constituted panel, the court again affirmed the judgments of the district court.
4 Appellate Case: 24-3113 Document: 64 Date Filed: 10/17/2025 Page: 5
These appeals followed.
We first consider the motion to dismiss brought by Defendants Deryl Wynn;
Jodi Fox; and McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, P.A. (the “MVP Appellees”). The
MVP Appellees point out that Mr. Sullivan filed Notices of Appeal in these cases
well after thirty days from the district court’s initial entries of judgment on July 26
and July 27, 2023. They argue further that the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motions were
untimely and therefore did not modify the Fed. R. App. P. 4 deadline for filing a
notice of appeal. While these arguments are well-taken with respect to the
underlying judgment, the Notices of Appeal were filed within thirty days of the
district court’s order denying the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion, and so are timely under
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) as to that order only. See 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.”). So, we deny the motion to dismiss in part.
Granting relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is “an extraordinary remedial
procedure. Accordingly, a court reviewing the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is
generally limited to determining whether the denial amounts to an abuse of
discretion. A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is arbitrary,
capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.” Choice Hospice, Inc. v.
Axxess Tech. Sols., Inc., 125 F.4th 1000, 1011 (10th Cir. 2025) (internal quotation
marks, citations, and footnote omitted). The decision whether to appoint counsel for
a pro se litigant in a civil case is, likewise, “a matter within the discretion of the
5 Appellate Case: 24-3113 Document: 64 Date Filed: 10/17/2025 Page: 6
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.”
McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985).
The arguments Mr. Sullivan presents in both appeals do not come close to
showing entitlement to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) relief, an abuse of discretion in the
denial of Rule 60(b) relief, or an abuse of discretion in concluding he did not meet
his burden to show sufficient merit to his claim that the court should appoint counsel
for him to prosecute the Rule 60(b) motion. Even liberally construed, Mr. Sullivan’s
arguments are, at best, attempts to reargue the merits of his previously dismissed
claims. This is improper as a basis for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. See Servants
of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012 (holding that a motion for reconsideration is not an
appropriate vehicle “to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that
could have been raised in prior briefing.”).
We therefore conclude these appeals are frivolous. See Braley v. Campbell,
832 F.2d 1504, 1510 (10th Cir. 1987) (“An appeal is frivolous when the result is
obvious, or the appellant’s arguments of error are wholly without merit.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). So, we dismiss them. See § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
(“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the
6 Appellate Case: 24-3113 Document: 64 Date Filed: 10/17/2025 Page: 7
court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the . . . appeal
. . . is frivolous . . . .”).
Entered for the Court
Joel M. Carson III Circuit Judge