Ridley (ID 117475) v. Sedgwick County Commissioners, Board of et al

Filing 10

ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 9 is denied. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 12/21/18. Mailed to pro se party Anthony Earl Ridley by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ANTHONY EARL RIDLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 18-3097-SAC

BOARD OF SEDGWICK COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiff Anthony Earl Ridley brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Although Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Lansing Correctional Facility at the time of
filing, the acts giving rise to his Complaint occurred while he was in custody at the Sedgwick
County Detention Facility.

The Court granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that he was denied a special diet and religious text in
accordance with his Hindu religion, and that he was excluded from chaplain services. On
July 18, 2018, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order and Order to Show Cause (Doc. 5)
(“MOSC”), granting Plaintiff until August 17, 2018, to either show good cause why his
Complaint should not be dismissed or to file a proper amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint (Doc. 6).
The Court found in the MOSC that: Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to dismissal based
on his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing this action; this action is
subject to dismissal as against the Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners, Sedgwick County
and Sheriff Jeff Easter because Plaintiff has not alleged the requisite causative custom or policy;
1

Plaintiff failed to allege personal participation by the two John Doe Chaplains; Plaintiff’s claims
against Sam Brownback, the Governor’s Constituent Services Office, the State of Kansas, and
any other state agency or employee are subject to summary dismissal based on sovereign
immunity; Plaintiff’s bare conspiracy allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; because Plaintiff is no longer detained at the Sedgwick County Detention Facility, his
requests for injunctive relief are moot; Plaintiff’s request for compensatory damages is barred by
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), because Plaintiff has failed to allege a physical injury; and Plaintiff
presents no plausible basis for a claim of punitive damages because he alleges no facts
whatsoever establishing that any defendant acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.
On December 4, 2018, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 7) finding that
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to address the deficiencies set forth in the MOSC. The
Court found that: although it does not appear that Plaintiff completed the formal grievance
procedures,1 even if Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies, the Amended Complaint
fails to state a valid claim for relief; Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to address why his
request for injunctive relief is not moot now that he is no longer incarcerated; Plaintiff’s request
for compensatory damages is barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), because Plaintiff has failed to
allege a physical injury; and Plaintiff presents no plausible basis for a claim of punitive damages
because he alleges no facts whatsoever establishing that any defendant acted with a sufficiently
culpable state of mind.

1

The Court notes that on January 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed Ridley v. Sedgwick Cty. Sheriff’s Office, Case No. 183011-SAC, based on the same claims as the instant case. At the time of filing Case No. 18-3011-SAC, Plaintiff was
incarcerated at the Lansing Correctional Facility, and was no longer housed at the Sedgwick County Detention
Center. In that case, Plaintiff stated on his complaint that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies because he
had been led to believe that his alleged incident was not a grievable matter. (Doc. 1, at 12.) That case was
dismissed on April 25, 2018, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff filed the instant case
on April 13, 2018.

2

On December 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 9), asking the
Court to reconsider its December 4, 2018 Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff argues that he
alleges acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious
“religious” needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that defendants knew
of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. Plaintiff’s argument that his claim should be
considered as an Eighth Amendment claim does not address the deficiencies set forth in the
MOSC and December 4, 2018 Memorandum and Order.
Plaintiff has stated no grounds for reconsideration.

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 order, 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.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 21st day of December, 2018, at Topeka, Kansas.

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

4