Gilmore v. Snyder et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling 15 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 11/18/2013.Mailed to pro se party Angela Marie Bogue Gilmore by regular and certified mail ; Certified Tracking Number: 70123460000082623763 (mm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANGELA MARIE BOGUE GILMORE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MARTY SNYDER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-1446-KHV

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration Of Order (Doc. #15)
filed September 6, 2013. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its order dated August 6, 2013, which
overruled plaintiff’s motion to prevent a magistrate judge from conducting pretrial proceedings in
this case. Memorandum And Order (Doc. #14). D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b) governs plaintiff’s
motion.
Under D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b), a party seeking reconsideration of a non-dispositive order must
file a motion within 14 days after the order is filed, unless the Court extends the time. Plaintiff filed
her motion to reconsider 31 days after the Court entered its order and did not seek an extension of
time. It is therefore untimely and, in addition, is lacking in merit.
A motion to reconsider a non-dispositive order 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 injustice. D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b). A motion to reconsider is only appropriate where
the Court has obviously misapprehended a party’s position, the facts or applicable law, or where the
party produces new evidence that it could not have obtained earlier through the exercise of due
diligence. Comeau v. Rupp, 810 F. Supp. 1172, 1174-75 (D. Kan. 1992). A motion to reconsider

is not a second opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case, to rehash arguments or
to dress up arguments that previously failed. Voelkel v. Gen. Motors Corp., 846 F. Supp. 1482,
1483 (D. Kan. 1994). A party’s failure to present its strongest case in the first instance does not
entitle it to a second chance in the form of a motion to reconsider. Cline v. S. Star Cent. Gas
Pipeline, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 1130, 1132 (D. Kan. 2005). Whether to grant a motion to reconsider
is left to the Court’s discretion.
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider does not cite an intervening change in controlling law or
discuss newly available evidence. It provides a Bible quotation which the Court construes as
plaintiff’s statement that the Court should reconsider its order to prevent manifest injustice. Upon
reviewing plaintiff’s original motion and the Court’s order, however, plaintiff’s motion to reconsider
simply restates plaintiff’s original request which the Court has already rejected. The Court therefore
overrules plaintiff’s motion to reconsider.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration Of Order
(Doc. #15) filed September 6, 2013 be and hereby is OVERRULED.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2013, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge

-2-