Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 00-3051-CM
January 6, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from Judgment (Doc. 108) and plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Argument for Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 110). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's March 24, 2003, Order granting defendants' Motion to Dismiss as well as denying various motions for relief by plaintiff (Doc. 106).
The court hereby grants plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Argument for Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 110), and notes that it has considered the arguments and authorities set forth in plaintiff's supplemental filing to his motion for reconsideration. However, as set forth below, plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from Judgment (Doc. 108) is denied.
I. Procedural Background
Plaintiff, who appears pro se, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on February 15, 2000. Plaintiff is incarcerated at El Dorado Correctional Facility (EDCF), operated by the Kansas Department of Corrections, but was an inmate at Hutchinson Correctional Facility (HCF) at the time of filing. Plaintiff named as defendants HCF and four of its individual employees (Louis Bruce, A. Perez, Paul Wilson, and Keith Anderson) alleging a violation of his constitutional right of access to the courts. Plaintiff claims that the HCF law library is constitutionally inadequate. Plaintiff also contends that certain HCF officials interfered with his filing an application for extension of time with the United States Supreme Court in order to file a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Kansas Supreme Court's denial of plaintiff's application for a writ of habeas corpus.
In its March 24, 2003, Order, this court dismissed plaintiff's action against HCF because it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. This court also dismissed plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants, Bruce, Perez, Wilson, and Anderson, because plaintiff was unable to establish that he suffered injury due to defendants' actions. This court further denied plaintiff's request for injunctive relief as moot because plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at HCF.
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's March 24, 2003, Order granting defendants' Motion to Dismiss as well as denying various motions for relief by plaintiff. Plaintiff claims the court's March 24, 2003, Order was based on legal error and relied on clearly erroneous factual findings.
II. Standard for Motion to Reconsider
Whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is committed to the court's discretion. Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 101 F.3d 1324, 1332 (10th Cir. 1996); Hancock v. City of Okla. City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir. 1988). In exercising that discretion, courts have recognized three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Major v. Benton, 647 F.2d 110, 112 (10th Cir. 1981); Burnett v. W. Res., Inc., 929 F. Supp. 1349, 1360 (D. Kan. 1996); Marx v. Schnuck Mkts., Inc., 869 F. Supp. 895, 897 (D. Kan. 1994). "Appropriate circumstances for a motion to reconsider are where the court has obviously misapprehended a party's position or the facts or the law, or the court has mistakenly decided issues outside of those the parties presented for determination. 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." Burnett, 929 F. Supp. at 1360 (citing Anderson v. United Auto Workers, 738 F. Supp. 441, 442 (D. Kan. 1990); Renfro v. City of Emporia, Kan., 732 F. Supp. 1116, 1117 (D. Kan. 1990)). Moreover, "[a] motion to reconsider is not a second chance for the losing party to make his strongest case or to dress up arguments that previously failed." Flake v. Hoskins, 55 F. Supp.2d 1196, 1203-04(0. Kan. 1999).
III. Discussion
A. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's March 24, 2003, Order dismissing his claims against HCF and several of its employees (in their individual capacities) for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has asked the court to reconsider that decision and alter or amend its order, but plaintiff has not satisfied any of the three grounds that might justify relief. In its March 24, 2003, Order, this court thoroughly analyzed each of plaintiff's claims, accepted as true all well-pleaded facts, and viewed all reasonable inferences from those facts in plaintiff's favor. See Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810, 813 (10th Cir. 1984) (explaining standard for dismissal of claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)). Even doing so, this court found plaintiff failed to state any claim for relief and dismissed plaintiff's claims.
This court has carefully reviewed plaintiff's motion to reconsider and plaintiff's additional arguments and authorities submitted to the court on May 28, 2003. The court notes that some of the arguments plaintiff raised in his motion relate to non-parties to this litigation, while others, though related to the instant case, provide no new information sufficient to meet the standard on which the court could grant a motion to reconsider. Upon its review, the court does not believe that its March 24, 2003, Order was the result of clear error or that plaintiff suffered manifest injustice as a result of the court dismissing his claims. Moreover, plaintiff has not identified, nor has the court discovered, any intervening change in controlling law or the availability of new evidence pertinent to that Order. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of this court's dismissal of his claims is denied.
B. Plaintiff's Motions
Plaintiff also moves for reconsideration of this court's denial of several ancillary motions at the same time it dismissed plaintiff's claims in March 2003. Because plaintiff's claims are dismissed and plaintiff's motion to reconsider the dismissal is denied, plaintiff's arguments regarding these additional motions are moot. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the denial of these motions is therefore denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from Judgment (Doc. 108) is denied.