Christopher Daniel Everson v. Theresa Lantz, et al.

The Petitioner presents two questions: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60 (d) (1) Provides: "(d) Other powers to grant relief, This rule does not limit a courts power to, (1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order or proceeding."; and In United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 at 46 (1998) This Court said, "if rule 60 (b) is to be interpreted as a coherent whole, be reserved, "for those cases of "injustices which" in certain instances, are deemed sufficiently gross to demand a departure' from rigid adherence to the doctrine of "res judicata." Question one is: In what instances or circumstances, if any, is the doctrine of "Res judicata", conjoined with the "frivolous standard" of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12 (b) (6) applicable to an Independent Action filed by a litigant pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60 (d) (1)? Question two is: If a litigant files an Independent Action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60 (d) (1), should the Independent Action be correctly filed and docketed as a hew action with a new docket number or should the Independent Action be correctly filed and docketed under the prior or original action and with the prior and original docket number?