Adams (ID 93199) v. Shelton et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION re 27 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A Robinson on 04/10/2018. Mailed to pro se party Kenneth D. Adams by regular mail. (tvn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KENNETH D. ADAMS,
Case No. 15-3219-JAR
JAY SHELTON, ET AL.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Kenneth D. Adams’s Motion For
Reconsideration (Doc. 27) of the Court’s denial of his Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. 25). No response has been filed and the time to do so has expired. For the reasons
stated below, the Court denies the motion.
This Court typically construes any self-styled motion to reconsider a judgment as either a
Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment or a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from
judgment or order, depending on its filing date.1 Because Petitioner filed this motion within 28
days of the underlying order, the Court treats it as a Rule 59(e) motion.2
A Rule 59 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
Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991) (stating Rule 59(e) and 60(b) are
distinct, and noting that which rule applies depends on when a motion is served).
Id. (“If a motion is served within ten [now twenty-eight] days of the rendition of judgment, the motion
ordinarily falls under Rule 59(e). If the motion is served after that time it falls under rule 60(b).”) (Internal citations
manifest injustice.3 A motion to alter or amend is not a proper mechanism to reargue arguments
that the Court previously rejected or “to advance arguments that could have been raised in prior
briefing.”4 It is not “a second chance for the losing party to make its strongest case or to dress up
arguments that previously failed.”5 The Court has broad discretion to grant or deny a Rule 59(e)
Petitioner asks this Court to re-examine Ground 2 on its own merits rather than grouping
it with Grounds 1 and 3 because Ground 2 involved law enforcement omitting material facts to
the magistrate judge, while Grounds 1 and 3 involved law enforcement allegedly coercing a
witness’s statement and/or fabricating statements to obtain a search warrant of Petitioner’s
home.7 He also requests the Court “once again . . . examine the performance of the Trial
Attorney, based on all known records and transcripts,”8 re-visit Grounds 4, 6, and 10, and
“review all other issues as they have been presented in each successive brief.”9
The Court discussed Grounds 1 through 3 together because they challenged the search
warrant’s validity. Although there is a nuanced difference between coerced/fabricated
statements and omitted facts, that difference is negligible and did not warrant a separate analysis
for Ground 2. This is especially true when the Court’s denial of Grounds 1 through 3 was based
on Petitioner having had an opportunity for a full and fair hearing regarding the search warrant at
Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
Voelkel v. Gen. Motors Corp., 846 F. Supp. 1482, 1483 (D. Kan.), aff'd, 43 F.3d 1484 (10th Cir. 1994).
See Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997).
Doc. 27 at 3–4.
Id. at 5.
Id. at 6.
the state level, which precludes federal habeas corpus relief under existing Supreme Court
Petitioner’s remaining arguments request the Court to revisit issues it has already
addressed and rejected. As noted above, it is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed.
The Court finds Petitioner’s arguments do not state a sufficient reason for the Court to alter or
amend its denial of his Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Because Petitioner has
failed to provide a basis for relief under Rule 59(e), the Court denies the motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Adams’ Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 27) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 10, 2018
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976) (“[W]here the State has provided an opportunity for full and
fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the
ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.”).
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?