United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. James U.S. Magistrate Judge.
the Court is Pro Se Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 55). Plaintiff Rodney Dewalt asks
the Court to reconsider its August 2, 2019 order (ECF No.
52). That order granted Defendant's Motion to Strike
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, after Plaintiff filed his
Amended Complaint without filing a motion for leave to file
such an amended complaint as directed by the Court. For the
reasons discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiff's
of Kansas Rule 7.3(b) permits a party to file a motion
seeking reconsideration of a non-dispositive order. The
motion to reconsider must be based on “(1) an
intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability
of new evidence, or (3) the need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice.” A motion to reconsider is
appropriate if the court has obviously misapprehended a
party's position, the facts, or applicable law or if the
party produces new evidence that could not have been obtained
through the exercise of due diligence. Such motions are
not appropriate if the movant only wants the court to revisit
issues already addressed or to hear new arguments or
supporting facts that could have been presented
originally. Whether to grant or deny reconsideration
lies within the court's sound discretion. The movant has
the burden to show an adequate reason to reconsider the prior
order of the court.
motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff does not cite or argue
any of the enumerated grounds set forth in D. Kan. Rule
7.3(b) for granting reconsideration of a non-dispositive
order. Plaintiff only states that he “was so upset that
he missed his flight” to Kansas City to attend his
scheduled deposition “that he rushed to the U.S. Post
Office and overlooked the motion by mistake” and did
not realize he failed to mail the motion until he received
the Court's order. In his reply,  despite reciting the
standard for a motion for reconsideration, he still fails to
explain on what basis he seeks reconsideration. He cites no
intervening change in controlling law, no new evidence, and
no clear error of law. Instead, he again says he simply
failed to include the motion and didn't realize the
failure until receiving the Court's order.
Court twice provided Plaintiff clear instructions regarding
his filing of a motion for leave to amend his
complaint. The Court also gave Plaintiff an extension
of time in which to do so. Despite these instructions and
additional time, Plaintiff failed to comply with the
Court's order. Plaintiff cites no basis for
reconsideration of the order, and therefore, Plaintiff's
motion is denied.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Pro Se
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 55) is
IS SO ORDERED.
 D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b). The Tenth Circuit
has adopted the same standard. See, e.g.,
Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012
(10th Cir. 2000); Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res.
Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 944 (10th Cir. 1995).
 Comeau v. Rupp, 810 F.Supp.
1172, 1174-75 (D. Kan. 1992).
 Van Skiver v. United States,
952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991).
Rand v. Wolf Creek Nuclear
Operating Corp., No. 11-4136-KHV, 2012 WL 1154509, at *2
(D. Kan. ...