Prine (ID 81295) v. Schroeder

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 9 is denied. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 10/25/17. Mailed to pro se party John Robert Prine by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JOHN ROBERT PRINE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 17-3128-SAC

KEITH SCHROEDER,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
by a prisoner in state custody. On September 22, 2017, the Court
dismissed this matter for failing to state a claim for relief (Doc.
#7). On September 27, 2017, plaintiff submitted a motion for
reconsideration (Doc. #9).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically
authorize a motion for reconsideration. In the District of Kansas,
“[p]arties seeking reconsideration of dispositive orders or judgments
must file a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60.” D. Kan.
R. 7.3(a). Plaintiff does not identify either provision in his motion.
Generally, a court may grant relief from a dispositive order
where there is “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2)
new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v.
Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A motion seeking relief
from a court order should not be used to present arguments that the
Court has considered and rejected, nor may the moving party present
arguments that it failed to present earlier. Van Skiver v. United
States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S.

828 (1992).
Plaintiff’s motion fails to meet any of the criteria for relief.
His motion cites “maxims of commerce law”, but he fails to present
any specific challenge to the Court’s determination that he presents
no ground for federal relief and that no basis for federal diversity
jurisdiction exists. Likewise, while plaintiff claims the defendant
has not come forward with any dispute in this matter, he fails to
recognize that the Court did not order service in this matter, and
instead summarily dismissed the action for failure to state a claim
for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring the Court to promptly
review a civil action filed by a prisoner against a governmental entity
or officer of employee of a governmental entity and to dismiss the
complaint, or any part of it, that fails to state a claim for relief).
In sum, the Court finds no ground to disturb its order of
dismissal in this matter.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (Doc. #9) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 25th day of October, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge