Brown v. Stoss et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 25 ) is denied. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 01/03/24. Mailed to pro se party Dontray L. Brown by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DONTRAY L. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 24-3109-JWL

BRENDA K. STOSS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time of
filing, Plaintiff was in custody at the Saline County Jail in Salina, Kansas. Plaintiff is currently
out of custody. On July 24, 2024, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order to Show Cause
(Doc. 11) (“MOSC”) directing Plaintiff to show good cause why his Complaint should not be
dismissed or to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint (Doc. 12), and on November 25, 2024, the Court entered a second Memorandum and
Order to Show Cause (Doc. 16) (“MOSC 2”) granting Plaintiff a final opportunity to submit a
second amended complaint on the court-approved form to cure the deficiencies. Plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Complaint (Docs. 18, 19, 20, 21) and responses (Docs. 17 and 22) to the
Court’s MOSC 2.

On December 23, 2024, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order

(Doc. 23) dismissing this case for failure to state a claim. This matter is before the Court on
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 25).
Plaintiff argues, without explanation, that the dismissal “blatantly shows either errors by
the courts, or an extreme prejudice that condones & upholds injustice(s).” (Doc. 25, at 2–3.)
Because Plaintiff’s motion was filed within 28 days after the entry of the order, the Court will

1

treat it as a motion under Rule 59. 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 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) may be granted when “the court
has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.” Nelson v. City of
Albuquerque, 921 F.3d 925, 929 (10th Cir. 2019) (citing Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204
F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)). 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, 204 F.3d at 1012. Motions to alter and amend are “not
appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised
in prior briefing.” Nelson, 921 F.3d at 929 (quoting Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012).
“[O]nce the district court enters judgment, the public gains a strong interest in protecting the
finality of judgments.” Id. at 929 (citation omitted). Reconsideration of a judgment after its
entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. See Templet v. HydroChem, Inc.,
367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004); Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th
Cir. 2006); Zucker v. City of Farmington Hills, 643 F. App’x 555, 562 (6th Cir. 2016) (relief
under R. 59(e) is rare).
Plaintiff has failed to show an intervening change in the controlling law, the availability
of new evidence that could not have been obtained previously through the exercise of due
diligence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Plaintiff does not meet
the exacting standard for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). In sum, Plaintiff has failed to meet

2

the standard required for this Court to alter or amend its December 23, 2024 Order and
Judgment, and that ruling stands.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Reconsider (Doc. 25) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated January 3, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3