Knittel (ID 25101) v. Schroder
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 9 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Sam A. Crow on 10/4/2017. Mailed to pro se party David Ray Knittel by regular mail. (ms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CASE NO. 17-3132-SAC-DJW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 26, 2017, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order (“M&O”) dismissing
this action for failure to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 7.) This matter is
before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 9).
On August 9, 2017, Magistrate Judge Waxse entered a Notice and Order to Show Cause
(“NOSC”), construing Plaintiff’s Complaint at Doc. 1 as an attempt to collect monetary damages
from the Defendant, the District Attorney of Reno County, due to his failure to respond to
Plaintiff’s request for production of documents and other discovery in an action brought in state
court. Magistrate Judge Waxse found that the Complaint identifies no ground for federal relief,
and that state district courts manage discovery in matters pending before them.
Magistrate Judge Waxse also held that Plaintiff’s attempt to invoke diversity jurisdiction
fails because the parties to this matter reside in Kansas, and Plaintiff makes no allegation to the
contrary. See generally, McEntire v. Kmart Corp., 2010 WL 553443, at *3 (D.N.M. Feb. 9, 2010)
(“[t]he Supreme Court of the United States has described th[e] statutory diversity requirement as
‘complete diversity,’ and it is present only when no party on one side of a dispute shares
citizenship with any party on the other side of a dispute.”)
The NOSC ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for
failure to state a claim for relief. In response to the NOSC, Plaintiff filed a new complaint as a
civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff again named the District
Attorney of Reno County as the sole defendant, claiming that he failed to respond to discovery
requests, a notice of dishonor and opportunity to cure, and a notice of default, “thereby acquiescing
to a commercial lien and/or title 42 action being placed upon himself and relinquishing any state
qualified immunity.” Id. at 2.
The Court’s M&O found that Plaintiff’s new complaint failed to address the deficiencies
set forth in the NOSC and failed to set forth a ground for federal relief. Plaintiff filed a motion
seeking reconsideration of the Court’s M&O.
Local Rule 7.3 provides that “[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. Rule 7.3(a).
Because Plaintiff’s motion was filed within 28 days after the entry of the judgment, the Court will
treat it as a motion under Rule 59(e). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a
judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”)
A motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) may be granted only if the
moving party can establish: (1) an intervening change in the 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 the
Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000); Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57
F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995). Such a motion does not permit a losing party to rehash arguments
previously addressed or to present new legal theories or facts that could have been raised earlier.
Servants, 204 F.3d at 1012.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is largely incomprehensible. He argues that he is
not proceeding pro se, because he “is not an agent of the State in any capacity.” Plaintiff rehashes
his argument regarding Defendant’s failure to answer discovery requests in state court. Plaintiff
also demands that “the court rule in Plaintiff’s favor, no dispute has been put forth by the
Defendant, this alone gives Plaintiff a created right and liberty interest and well into Plaintiff’s
pursuit of happiness.” (Doc. 9, at 3.) It is unclear whether Plaintiff is referring to Defendant’s
failure to answer in state court or in this action. The Court notes that because Plaintiff’s
Complaint did not survive screening, Defendant was never served or required to answer in this
Plaintiff has failed to address any of the deficiencies in his complaints as set forth in the
NOSC and the M&O. Plaintiff has failed to allege an intervening change in the controlling law or
the availability of new evidence. Plaintiff has failed to show the need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice warranting reconsideration of the Court’s September 26, 2017
Memorandum and Order (Doc. 7) dismissing Plaintiff’s case.
Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 9) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated on this 4th day of October, 2017, in Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U. S. Senior 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?