Farr v. Davis et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 75 Motion to Reconsider; denying 82 Objections/Motion for Review/Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 8/4/2017. Mailed to pro se party Joan E. Farr by regular mail. (hl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JOAN E. FARR,
DARYL DAVIS, et al.,
Case No. 16-2180-CM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Joan E. Farr brings this action pro se, claiming that defendants Daryl Davis, Dennis
Moon, DeAnn Coote, John Patrick Hall, and Huckleberry Homeowners Association violated her
constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants conspired to deprive her
of her rights by stealing her property and influencing the police to harass plaintiff. The case is
currently before the court on several motions. This Memorandum and Order addresses Plaintiff’s
Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 74) and Plaintiff’s Objections/Motion for Review/Motion to Stay (Doc.
Both motions essentially request the same relief: Plaintiff asks the court to give her additional
time to object to a Report and Recommendation dated April 6, 2017.
In the Report and
Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Kenneth Gale recommended that this court deny plaintiff leave to
join additional defendants. Plaintiff failed to timely object to the Report and Recommendation, and
this court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full on May 4, 2017. The next day, plaintiff
filed a motion to reconsider, stating that she did not receive the Report and Recommendation. The
document was served electronically, as plaintiff registered with the court to receive electronic
notifications of filings. Plaintiff directs the court to Doc. 47 in the record, where she stated that she
was having trouble opening documents from email. In that filing, plaintiff asked that she be “notified
by e-mail or telecom by the Court or opposing counsel concerning any court activity that occurs as
soon thereafter as possible.” (Doc. 47 at 1.) She claims if she had received the court’s order, “any
reasonable person would believe that she would have tried to file a timely response.” (Doc. 75 at 2.)
Plaintiff also requests that in the future, the court notify her of any actions it takes by telecom or e-mail
and send a paper copy.
Plaintiff’s motion fails for three mutually exclusive reasons. First, it is untimely. To the extent
that plaintiff attempts to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, she failed to file such
objection within fourteen days of the order. Plaintiff’s objection is therefore waived. See Moore v.
United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991) (providing that the Tenth Circuit has “a firm waiver
rule” that “provides that the failure to make timely objections to the magistrate’s findings or
recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72;
see also D. Kan. R. 72.1.4.
Second, to the extent that plaintiff is asking for additional time to object to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation, she must show excusable neglect. D. Kan. R. 6.1(a)(4). But plaintiff
consented to electronic service. She did not revoke that consent. Electronic transmission of the Notice
of Electronic Filing fulfills Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d)’s notice requirement. D. Kan. R. 5.4.10. The court’s
order was therefore effectively served on plaintiff on April 6, 2017. If plaintiff wishes to withdraw her
consent to receive electronic service, she should refer to the court’s Administrative Procedures for
Filing in Civil Cases, available on the court’s website. Plaintiff’s filing of Doc. 47—asking for other
notice—is insufficient. Moreover, she responded to other documents after filing Doc. 47. (See, e.g.,
Docs. 53, 61.)
The court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated excusable neglect for failing to
timely object to the magistrate judge’s order.
Third, to the extent that plaintiff’s motion is truly one for reconsideration, she has not met the
standards for reconsideration of an order. She provides no new material or reasoning that would
suggest that the magistrate judge incorrectly recommended that the court disallow amendment, or that
this court incorrectly denied amendment. The fact remains that plaintiff did not attach a proposed
amendment to her motion. See D. Kan. R. 15.1(a)(2) (requiring that the moving party attach a
proposed pleading to the motion). Further, she failed to show that she has a plausible claim against
either of the newly-proposed defendants. Amendment would be futile.
Finally, the court denies plaintiff’s request that the court and opposing counsel separately notify
plaintiff of all filings, in addition to relying on electronic service. The court will order that this
particular order be sent to plaintiff’s address listed on the docket. But this order also serves as notice
that the court will not continue this procedure or ask opposing counsel to do so. If plaintiff wishes to
revoke her consent to electronic service, she must follow the court’s procedures for doing so.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 75) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections/Motion for Review/Motion to Stay
(Doc. 82) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court transmit this order to plaintiff by
U.S. mail, addressed to the postal address listed on the docket.
Dated this 4th day of August, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Carlos Murguia_____________
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?