Barthelman v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 31 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 7/25/14. (mm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ZACHARY LEE BARTHELMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 12-1349-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment (Doc. 31). On
January 9, 2014 this Court entered its Memorandum and Order (Doc. 29) and Judgment (Doc.
30) affirming Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff disability benefits. Plaintiff now seeks
reconsideration of the Court’s decision.
D. Kan. Rule 7.3(a) allows a party to seek reconsideration of a dispositive order under
Rule 59(e) or 60. 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.1 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.2

1

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).
2

Servants, 204 F.3d at 1012; Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 101 F.3d 1324, 1332 (10th Cir.
1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1181 (1997).

1

As Defendant argues in its response, Plaintiff’s motion is largely an inappropriate rehash
of arguments it raised before concerning the evaluation of Dr. Goodman’s treatment notes and
the weight given to the opinions of Dr. Goodman and Ms. Ahrens. Plaintiff also argues that
because he was awarded disability benefits by the Defendant in 2013, for a period of disability
with an onset date of March 19, 2010, this Court must have erred in affirming Defendant’s
earlier decision denying benefits for a period with an onset of July 16, 2008. This does not meet
the standard for relief under Rule 59(e).
Moreover, because Plaintiff filed his Motion to Alter Judgment on February 6, 2014,
more than 14 days after this Court entered judgment on January 9, 2014, it is more properly
construed as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. As the Tenth Circuit noted in
Hawkins v. Evans,3 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a motion to reconsider,
so such motions are construed as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend, if the motion is filed
within fourteen days of the entry of judgment; but if the motion is filed more than fourteen days
after entry of judgment, it is construed as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment.
And, Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment does not meet the stricter standards for a
Rule 60(b) motion. For Rule 60(b) is “an extraordinary procedure permitting the court that
entered judgment to grant relief therefrom upon a showing of good cause within the rule.”4
Under Rule 60(b), the court may relieve a party from a final judgment for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have
been discovered; . . . (3) fraud . . . misrepresentation, or misconduct
by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has
3

64 F.3d 543, 546 (10th Cir. 1995).

4

Cessna Fin. Corp. v. Bielenberg Masonry Contracting, Inc., 715 F.2d 1442, 1444 (10th Cir. 1983).

2

been satisfied . . . [or] it is based on an earlier judgment that has been
reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer
equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.5
Rule 60(b) is simply “not available to allow a party merely to reargue an issue previously
addressed by the court when the re-argument merely advances new arguments or supporting
facts which were available for presentation at the time of the original argument” because a Rule
60(b) motion is not a substitute for appeal.6
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter
Judgment (Doc. 31) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 25, 2014
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

6

Hilliard v. Dist. Ct. of Comanche County, 100 F. App’x 816, 819 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations

omitted).

3