United States District Court, D. Kansas
KATHY V. BEDDOW, Plaintiff,
JAY RHODES and J. STREEVAL, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. JAMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this action alleging civil rights violations against
Jay Rhodes, Captain of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and J.
Streeval, Associate Warden. Plaintiff has filed a motion to
reconsider the Court's August 13, 2019 Order (ECF No.
55). The Court previously denied Plaintiff's request for
an order to allow her incarcerated son to appear at the
Scheduling Conference (ECF No. 53). In that order, the Court
found Plaintiff did not cite any authority for the Court to
enter an order for her incarcerated son to participate in the
conference and noted that as a pro se plaintiff, she may not
have a non-attorney appear on her behalf. Plaintiff has also
filed a motion for the September 26, 2019 Scheduling
Conference to be recorded (ECF No. 56). Defendant opposes
Plaintiff's motion to reconsider but does not oppose her
request to record the Scheduling Conference (ECF No. 57). For
the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiff's
motion to reconsider and grants Plaintiff's motion to
record the Scheduling Conference.
of Kansas Rule 7.3(b) permits a party to file a motion
seeking reconsideration of a non-dispositive order, such as
an order denying appointment of counsel. 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 exercises 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. She says her health has deteriorated and she has been
diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment. She says her son
is the “only other person that knows the case or
remembers the ‘FACTS' of what happened”
besides Plaintiff. Plaintiff also states it “wasn't
an issue at the first teleconference when Plaintiff's
daughter appeared telephonically with
Plaintiff's daughter did appear with Plaintiff for the
May 31, 2019 hearing, this was not the result of a court
order. Plaintiff did not request, and the Court did not
grant, permission for Plaintiff's daughter to appear in
advance of that hearing. Rather, Plaintiff requested during
the conference that her daughter, who was present with her,
also be able to listen to the conference. With no objection
from Defendant, the Court granted Plaintiff's request.
This is different than asking the Court to order a federal
prison to allow her incarcerated son to appear telephonically
for a hearing in a case to which he is not a party. Plaintiff
has still provided no authority for such a request. Although
the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff's health concerns,
the documentation Plaintiff provides in support of her
request states Plaintiff should not operate a motor vehicle
and has “mild problems with short-term
memory.” It does not indicate Plaintiff is unfit
to represent herself in this action and her filings in this
case suggest otherwise. Plaintiff also argues her son has
“full power of attorney over
Plaintiff.” But as Defendant notes, this would not
allow Plaintiff's son to appear either along with her or
on her behalf. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration is denied.
also requests the Scheduling Conference be recorded because
of her health conditions. As noted before, Defendant does not
oppose this request. The Court grants Plaintiff's request
and will record the Scheduling Conference on September 26,
2019. A recording of the conference will be available for 30
days after the conference.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that
Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Magistrate's August
13, 2019 Order (ECF No. 55) is denied.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion
Requesting the Sept. 26, 2019 Teleconference be Recorded (ECF
No. 56) is granted.
IS SO ORDERED.
 See ECF No. 4.
 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.