Basic v. Boeing Corporation
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 11 Motion to Produce. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 6/13/2017.Mailed to pro se party Steven Basic by regular mail (cm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case No. 17-1103-EFM-KGG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Steven Basic, acting pro se, brought this action against Defendant Boeing
Corporation alleging various claims arising from the termination of his employment from Boeing
in 2004. Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale recommended that the Court dismiss Basic’s claim
for failure to state a claim (Doc. 5). The Court adopted that recommendation, and the case was
dismissed on May 26, 2017 (Doc. 9). Nevertheless, Basic has since filed another document in
which he seeks the production of materials relating to the case that the Court has already
Because the Court has issued an order dismissing Basic’s case, the Court will construe
his subsequent filing as a motion to reconsider that order. Rule 59(e) permits a party to request
reconsideration and alteration of a final judgment.1 The Court will reconsider and alter an earlier
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
judgment if the movant presents evidence of (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2)
newly discovered evidence, or (3) the need to correct clear error in the earlier judgment.2 Rule
59(e) is not, however, an appropriate vehicle for revisiting issues already considered or arguing
matters that were not raised in prior briefs.3
Basic alleges no changes in controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or the need to
correct clear error in the Court’s earlier judgment.
Rather, it appears Basic is under the
impression that his case against Boeing is still pending. It is not. The case has been dismissed.
And Basic has not demonstrated a need for the Court to amend or alter its judgment in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Basic’s Motion to Produce (Doc. 11) is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 13th day of June, 2017.
ERIC F. MELGREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
See Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
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?