Smith v. Snodgrass et al

Filing 80

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West denying 77 Motion to Alter Order/Judgment. (adw, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RANDY SMITH,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DEBY SNODGRASS; KRIS MAREK;
BRYCE TODD; CLAUDIA CONNER;
GREGORY SNIDER; SCOTT LANGE;
LESSLEY PULLIAM; and
MICHAEL VAUGHT,
Defendants.

Case No. CIV-14-201-KEW

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to
Alter Judgment (Docket Entry #77).
exclusively

brought

alleging

This action was expressly and
a

violation

of

Plaintiff’s

constitutional procedural due process rights in the termination of
his

employment.

On

January

11,

2017,

this

Court

granted

Defendant’s summary judgment motion and dismissed this action. The
facts related in that Opinion and Order will not be unnecessarily
repeated

here,

Plaintiff’s

but

rights

the

basis

included

for

(1)

the

bias

alleged

or

violation

of

predetermination

of

Plaintiff’s termination in advance of the pre-termination hearing;
(2) failing to grant Plaintiff a continuance of the pre-termination
hearing; and (3) failing to use progressive discipline instead of
termination for Plaintiff’s transgressions.
Plaintiff brings this Motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
“Relief

under

Rule

59(e)

should

only

be

granted

due

to

an

intervening change in the controlling law, new evidence previously
unavailable, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest

injustice.” Figueroa v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida, 517
F.Supp.2d 1266, 1270 (D.Colo. 2006) (citing Servants of Paraclete
v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).

Such a motion is

not the appropriate vehicle to “revisit issues already addressed or
advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.”
Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012 (citing Van Skiver v.
United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991)).

A party's

failure to present his strongest case in the first instance does
not entitle him to a second chance in the form of a motion to
reconsider.

Cline v. Southern Star Cent. Gas Pipeline, Inc., 370

F.Supp.2d 1130, 1132 (D.Kan. 2005); see also Syntroleum Corp. v.
Fletcher Int'l, 2009 WL 761322, at *1 (N.D .Okla. Mar. 19, 2009)
(unpublished)(Rule

59(e)

motion

designed

to

permit

relief

in

extraordinary circumstances, not to offer second bite at proverbial
apple). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is committed
to the court's discretion.

See Hancock v. City of Okla. City, 857

F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir. 1988).

The only basis under Rule 59(e)

implicated by Plaintiff’s Motion is the need to correct clear error
and prevent manifest injustice.
Plaintiff’s primary argument lies with his belief that this
Court did not adequately consider the testimony of Defendant’s
Human Resources Director Scott Lange (“Lange”). Plaintiff contends
Lange

was

responsible

for

the

investigation

into

Plaintiff’s

alleged misconduct in asking another employee if he shot a murdered
park ranger.

Plaintiff contends Lange’s failure to perform an

adequate investigation into Plaintiff’s conduct indicates that the
2

result was predetermined. Plaintiff chooses to ignore this Court’s
ruling

in

several

respects.

The

hearing

officer

ultimately

responsible for considering Plaintiff’s termination at the pretermination hearing was Bryce Todd (“Todd”) - not Lange. Plaintiff
failed to demonstrate bias on the part of Todd in any respect or
that Todd had pre-determined the outcome of the hearing. Moreover,
Plaintiff

never

gave

Todd

the

opportunity

to

review

the

investigation content or consider Plaintiff’s side of the story
because he did not attend the pre-termination hearing, despite
being given appropriate notice of the hearing.
Plaintiff also contends the pretext of the basis for the
termination turns on the fact that the OSBI was not investigating
the

murder

of

the

park

ranger

at

disciplined.

This fact is immaterial.

Mike

former

Vaught,

comment.

Chief

Park

the

time

Plaintiff

was

The OSBI was contacted by

Ranger

concerning

Plaintiff’s

The fact an investigation was not actively being pursued

by the OSBI or that Lange considered that fact is of little moment
to whether Plaintiff was provided with adequate procedural due
process. Additionally, the pendency of an OSBI investigation was
not a basis for termination provided in the notice of termination
to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff

also

constitutionally

contends

insufficient

the

notice

because

it

mention of a 2004 disciplinary incident.

provided

to

him

was

did

include

any

not

Although the 2004

incident is referenced in the termination letter, the focus of the
hearing for which he received notice was the comment to the fellow
3

employee as conduct unbecoming a park ranger.

Again, if Plaintiff

had attended the pre-termination hearing, he would have known the
full extent of the discipline being considered.

Nothing in the

record suggests that Plaintiff would have attended the hearing if
he had known that the 2004 incident was to be considered in the
decision to terminate.
Plaintiff also challenges the consideration of his request to
continue the pre-termination hearing.

This issue was fully and

adequately addressed in this Court’s original Opinion and Order on
Defendants’ summary judgment motion.

Plaintiff’s request to alter

that Opinion and Order adds nothing to the previous argument.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter
Judgment (Docket Entry #77) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2017.

______________________________
KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4