United States District Court, D. Kansas
KENNETH D. ADAMS, Petitioner,
JAY SHELTON, ET AL., Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
A. ROBINSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Kenneth D.
Adams's Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. 27) of the
Court's denial of his Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. 25). No. response has been filed and the time to
do so has expired. For the reasons stated below, the Court
denies the motion.
Court typically construes any self-styled motion to
reconsider a judgment as either a Rule 59(e) motion to alter
or amend the judgment or a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from
judgment or order, depending on its filing
date. Because Petitioner filed this motion
within 28 days of the underlying order, the Court treats it
as a Rule 59(e) motion.
59 motion is appropriate only if the moving party
establishes: 1) an intervening change in controlling law; 2)
the availability of new evidence that could not have been
obtained previously through the exercise of due diligence; or
3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice. A motion to alter or amend is not a proper
mechanism to reargue arguments that the Court previously
rejected or “to advance arguments that could have been
raised in prior briefing.” It is not “a second
chance for the losing party to make its strongest case or to
dress up arguments that previously
failed.” The Court has broad discretion to grant or
deny a Rule 59(e) motion.
asks this Court to re-examine Ground 2 on its own merits
rather than grouping it with Grounds 1 and 3 because Ground 2
involved law enforcement omitting material facts to the
magistrate judge, while Grounds 1 and 3 involved law
enforcement allegedly coercing a witness's statement
and/or fabricating statements to obtain a search warrant of
Petitioner's home. He also requests the Court “once
again . . . examine the performance of the Trial Attorney,
based on all known records and transcripts,
” re-visit Grounds 4, 6, and 10, and
“review all other issues as they have been presented in
each successive brief.”
Court discussed Grounds 1 through 3 together because they
challenged the search warrant's validity. Although there
is a nuanced difference between coerced/fabricated statements
and omitted facts, that difference is negligible and did not
warrant a separate analysis for Ground 2. This is especially
true when the Court's denial of Grounds 1 through 3 was
based on Petitioner having had an opportunity for a full and
fair hearing regarding the search warrant at the state level,
which precludes federal habeas corpus relief under existing
Supreme Court precedent.
remaining arguments request the Court to revisit issues it
has already addressed and rejected. As noted above, it is not
appropriate to revisit issues already addressed. The Court
finds Petitioner's arguments do not state a sufficient
reason for the Court to alter or amend its denial of his
Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Because
Petitioner has failed to provide a basis for relief under
Rule 59(e), the Court denies the motion.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Adams'
Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 27) is
IS SO ORDERED.
Van Skiver v. United States,
952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991) (stating Rule 59(e) and
60(b) are distinct, and noting that which rule applies