Kinney v. Holder et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 34 plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 5/23/2012. Mailed to pro se party Darryl Kinney by regular mail. (mss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

DARRYL KINNEY,
Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No. 11-4176-JTM

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC J.
HOLDER, ET AL.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Mr. Kinney’s Motion to Reconsider Complaint and Case (Dkt. No. 34) is before the court.
On April 4, 2012, this court dismissed all claims against the defendants for several reasons,
“primarily, that Mr. Kinney has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Dkt. No.
32, pg. 1. Mr. Kinney’s current motion consists of the following argument:
Now comes the Plaintiff, who request reconsideration of the case based on the
Approval of the Complaint by the Judge on January 9, 2012, and then later
dismissing what he approved would mean that the Judge either did not pay attention
to his granting the copy put before the court or something else in action leading to the
less favorable decision to go against the Judges initial accesment [sic] which would
leave the Plaintiff at the mercy of a wrong Judicial decision on the granting of the
Amended complaint on January 9, 2012 which would mean in other words the Judges
decision would be wrong based on prior approval on the same issue.
Dkt. No. 34.
A motion to reconsider may be granted to correct manifest errors, or in light of newly
discovered evidence. Such a motion is appropriate only if the moving party establishes: (1) an

intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that could not have been
obtained previously through the exercise of due diligence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice. Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000); see
also D. KAN. R. 7.3(b)(1)-(3). A motion for reconsideration “is not appropriate to revisit issues
already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Id. It is not
“a second chance for the losing party to make its strongest case or to dress up arguments that
previously failed.” Voelkel v. General Motors Corp., 846 F. Supp. 1482, 1483 (D. Kan.), aff’d, 43
F.3d 1484 (10th Cir. 1994). The resolution of the motion is committed to the sound discretion of the
court. Hancock v. City of Oklahoma City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir. 1988).
Here, Mr. Kinney’s only ground for reconsideration appears to be that the decision allowing
him leave to amend on January 9, 2012, (Dkt. No. 15) and the decision dismissing his claims (Dkt.
No. 32) are inconsistent and are simply “wrong.” First, the two decisions issued by this court are not
contradictory or inconsistent. More importantly, such an argument does not fall into any of the three
categories required for a successful reconsideration motion. Therefore, Mr. Kinney’s motion is
denied.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 23rd day of May 2012, that Mr. Kinney’s Motion
to Reconsider Complaint and Case (Dkt. No. 34) is denied.

s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE

2