Williams (ID 117920) v. Zmuda et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 67 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Darren L. Williams. Signed by District Judge John W. Broomes on 5/10/2022. Mailed to pro se party Darren L. Williams by regular mail. (hw)
Case 5:20-cv-03277-JWB-GEB Document 69 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DARREN L. WILLIAMS,
Case No. 20-3277-JWB
Secretary, Kansas Department of Corrections;
DOUGLAS W. BURRIS, Facility Manager,
Kansas Department of Corrections,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 67.) The
motion has been briefed and is ripe for decision. (Docs. 67, 68.) For the reasons stated herein,
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
On March 10, 2022, this court entered an order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss or
for summary judgment. (Doc. 65.) The detailed background is set forth in that order and will not
be restated here. Plaintiff subsequently filed the present motion asking the court to “thoroughly
and realistically” address his previous arguments made in rebuttal to Defendants’ motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment. (Doc. 67 at 5.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff “merely
reasserts his previous arguments or attempts to bolster those arguments in a way he could have
done” previously, which “is not a proper ground for reconsideration.” (Doc. 68 at 2.) The court
“A motion to reconsider must be based on: (1) an intervening change in controlling law;
(2) the availability of new evidence, or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
Case 5:20-cv-03277-JWB-GEB Document 69 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 2
injustice.” D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b)1; see also Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012
(10th Cir. 2000) (stating same three grounds for a Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider a nondispositive order). A motion for reconsideration is not appropriate to repeat arguments or advance
arguments that could have been raised previously. Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
Here, it is clear that Plaintiff is simply rehashing his previous arguments the court already
considered in granting Defendants’ motion and dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant points
to no change in the law or evidence. Instead, Plaintiff believes the court erred by not properly
considering his rebuttal arguments before granting Defendants’ motion. However, this is not the
case. The court clearly walked through Plaintiff’s arguments concerning all four prongs of the
Turner test and his equal protection allegations. (Doc. 65 at 10-16.) Defendant offers nothing
new for the court to consider. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 67) is
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2022.
__s/ John W. Broomes_____________
JOHN W. BROOMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff does not state whether his motion for reconsideration is brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or 60. See D.
Kan. R. 7.3(a). Nevertheless, the court concludes that the motion fails to state a basis for reconsideration under
either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60.
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?