Lucas v. Dadson Manufacturing Corporation et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 20 Motion for Reconsideration re 18 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,, filed by James R. Lucas. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 9/8/2021. (cm)
Case 2:20-cv-02509-EFM-JPO Document 36 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JAMES R. LUCAS,
Case No. 20-CV-02509-EFM
CORPORATION, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff James R. Lucas proceeds pro se. Plaintiff brought an action against Defendants
Dadson Manufacturing Corporation and Peter B. Lucas, alleging various causes of action
stemming from a business dispute. On December 14, 2020, Defendants filed their respective
Motions to Dismiss, which this Court granted on July 7, 2021. The Court then entered judgment
against Plaintiff. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Doc. 20). For reasons outlined below, the Court denies the motion.
Case 2:20-cv-02509-EFM-JPO Document 36 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 4
Local Rule 7.3 governs motions to reconsider.1 “The standards governing motions to
reconsider are well established. A motion to reconsider is appropriate where the court has
obviously misapprehended a party’s position or the facts or applicable law, or where the party
produces new evidence that could not have been obtained through the exercise of due diligence.”2
A motion to reconsider is not an appropriate method for a party to revisit issues already addressed
or to advance new arguments and supporting facts that were originally available.3 In other words,
“[a] party’s failure to present its strongest case in the first instance does not entitle it to a second
chance in the form of a motion to reconsider.”4
The decision regarding whether to grant or to deny a motion for reconsideration is left
within the sound discretion of the district court.5 Because Plaintiff appears pro se in this case, the
Court must liberally construe his pleadings,6 but such liberal construction does not relieve the
plaintiff of his burden to demonstrate that reconsideration is proper.7
D. Kan. R. 7.3.
Eissa v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL 3611492, *1 (D. Kan. 2011) (quoting Comeau v. Rupp, 810 F. Supp.
1172, 1174–75 (D. Kan. 1992)).
Cline v. S. Star Cent. Gas Pipeline, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 1130, 1132 (D. Kan. 2005) (quoting Sithon Mar.
Co. v. Holiday Mansion, 177 F.R.D. 504, 505 (D. Kan. 1998)).
Vanlerberghe v. Apfel, 2000 WL 360104, *1 (D. Kan. 2000) (citations omitted).
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Case 2:20-cv-02509-EFM-JPO Document 36 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 4
Under D. Kan. R. 7.3(a), “[p]arties seeking reconsideration of dispositive orders or
judgments must file a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60.” Thus, “[t]he court will not
grant reconsideration of such an order or judgment under [Local Rule 7.3].”8 Here, Plaintiff
requests that the Court reconsider its dispositive order granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.
Plaintiff was therefore required to file a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60.9 Plaintiff
failed, however, to invoke Rule 59(e) or 60 at any place in his motion and instead merely asks the
Court to reconsider its order dismissing the case. Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and the
Court must liberally construe Plaintiff’s motion,10 Plaintiff is still “subject to the same rules of
procedure that govern other litigants.”11 Because Plaintiff failed to properly invoke Rule 59(e) or
60, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied as improper.
Even if Plaintiff properly filed a Rule 59(e) or 60 motion, however, he would still not meet
that standard. Rule 60 motions are “not intended to be a substitute for a direct appeal”12 and are
“not available to allow a party merely to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when
the reargument merely advances new arguments or supporting facts which were available for
presentation at the time of the original argument.”13
Thus, “[a]bsent extraordinary
circumstances . . . the basis for the second motion must not have been available at the time the first
D. Kan. R. 7.3(a).
Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
DiCesare v. Stuart, 12 F.3d 973, 979 (10th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
FDIC ex rel. Heritage Bank & Tr. v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 152 F.3d 1266, 1272 (10th Cir. 1998) (quoting
Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 577 (10th Cir. 1996)).
Case 2:20-cv-02509-EFM-JPO Document 36 Filed 09/08/21 Page 4 of 4
motion was filed.”14 Here, Plaintiff revisits his grievances with prior state court judgments and
reasserts arguments already addressed by this Court. He further attempts to allege facts not
included in his initial or amended complaint, although they appear to have been available to
Plaintiff at the time he filed this suit. Plaintiff therefore provides the Court with no basis to
overturn its prior judgment and his motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 20)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 8th day of September, 2021.
ERIC F. MELGREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
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?