Mayfield et al v. Harvey County Sheriff's Department et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 84 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge J. Thomas Marten on 01/13/2017. Mailed to pro se party Kent Mayfield and Tonya Mayfield at 1020 S Hertzler Rd, Halstead, KS 67056 by regular mail. (aa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KENT MAYFIELD and
Case No. 6:14-cv-01307-JTM
HARVEY COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Reconsideration.” (Dkt. 84). As discussed below, the motion is both untimely and fails
to show any basis for reconsideration. Accordingly, it is denied.
Plaintiffs filed a pro se complaint alleging that two Harvey County Sheriff’s
Deputies, Carman Clark and Jim Bethards, “trespassed onto our private property with
malicious intent to kill our pets,” with Clark firing at but missing one of plaintiffs’ dogs,
and Bethards shooting and killing their other dog. Dkt. 1 at 1. The officers then
allegedly tried to cover up their actions. Shortly after the incident, Clark was confronted
by plaintiff Kent Mayfield, who was armed. Clark forced Mayfield to relinquish his
firearm while they talked about the shooting. At the end of the conversation, Clark
returned the firearm but kept the ammunition clip overnight. Id. at 2.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that Clark “is guilty of … illegal
seizure of my legal firearm, constituting a violation of my Fourth Amendment
Rights….” Id. at 2.
It alleged that Bethards “is guilty of … a violation of my
Constitutional Fourth Amendment Rights by destroying our private property, our pet
Majka Tikaani.” Id. The complaint named other defendants in addition to the two
On March 26, 2015, the court denied Bethards’ motion to dismiss, finding that
plaintiffs had alleged a plausible Fourth Amendment claim against him under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, and that Bethards was not entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. 51 at 8. The court
found that Clark was entitled to dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claim against him,
because the temporary seizure of Mayfield’s firearm and ammunition clip were
reasonable, and he was therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 9. The court also
dismissed all of the other named defendants.
Bethards appealed the denial of qualified immunity, but the Tenth Circuit
affirmed that ruling. Dkt. 63. Plaintiffs attempted to appeal the court’s dismissal of the
other defendants, but the Tenth Circuit dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction.1
On September 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a “Motion for Reconsideration” (Dkt. 69)
which, among other things, argued that the court erred in finding that Clark was
entitled to qualified immunity. Although the motion was arguably untimely, the court
Plaintiffs have since attempted to take another interlocutory appeal with respect to the Magistrate
Judge’s discovery rulings, but that appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Dkt. 94.
reviewed the arguments set forth and denied them in an order filed October 27, 2016.
On December 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed a second “Motion for Reconsideration.” Dkt.
84. This motion again argues that the court erred in finding that Clark was entitled to
qualified immunity. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs argue that in denying their first motion to
reconsider, the court ignored the allegations in the complaint and showed no reason
“why Carman Clark would be eligible for qualified immunity for the illegal search of
the property.” Id.
The only Fourth Amendment violation alleged against Clark in the complaint
was the allegation that Clark’s seizure of the firearm violated Mayfield’s Fourth
Amendment rights. Dkt. 1 at 2. Plaintiffs have shown no error with respect to the ruling
that Clark was entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. Additionally, as defendant
points out, plaintiffs’ second motion to reconsider is untimely under D. Kan. R. 7.3, and
is denied for that reason as well. See D. Kan. R. 7.3(b) (motion to reconsider nondispositive order must be filed within 14 days of the order). No further motions to
reconsider this issue will be entertained.
2 Shortly after the court entered this order, it was informed that plaintiffs had mailed a brief entitled
“Plaintiff’s Response to Mediation Request” to the court, which had been directed to the Magistrate
Judge’s chambers because it appeared to deal with mediation and/or discovery requests. See Dkt. 75. The
brief included one section arguing that plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was timely. Because the
court did not deny the above-described motion on grounds of untimeliness, however, nothing in this
brief would have altered the court’s ruling.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this 13th day of January, 2017, that plaintiffs’
Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 84) is DENIED.
___s/ J. Thomas Marten_______
J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE
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?