United States District Court, D. Kansas
SHAWN W. McDIFFETT, Plaintiff,
CHARLES H. NANCE, et al., Defendants.
P. O'HARA U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a federal inmate proceeding pro se, brings this action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs when he was held in custody
by the State of Kansas. This matter is before the court on
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's
August 19, 2019 order denying his motion to appoint counsel
(ECF No. 77). The motion for reconsideration is denied.
Rule 7.3 governs motions for reconsideration of orders. When
a party seeks reconsideration of a non-dispositive matter,
the motion for reconsideration 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.” The decision whether to
grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is committed to
the court's discretion. A motion for reconsideration is
appropriate if the court “has misapprehended the facts,
a party's position, or the controlling law . . .
.” However, “it is not appropriate to
revisit issues already addressed or to advance arguments that
could have been raised in prior
briefing.” Such a motion is not a second chance for
the losing party to “make its strongest case . . . or
to dress up arguments that previously
motion for reconsideration, plaintiff simply reiterates past
arguments already considered by the court. First, plaintiff
complains that he has limited ability to access the prison
law library while incarcerated in the Special Housing Unit
(“SHU”) of the Federal Prison in Yazoo City,
Mississippi. But as the court noted in its order, all
pretrial proceedings in this case are currently stayed until
a ruling is issued on a defendants' pending motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment. The court noted
“plaintiff has given the court no information about
what he wants to research, nor an estimate of the amount of
time he believes necessary to complete such
research.” In his motion for reconsideration,
plaintiff did not address this deficiency in the
plaintiff again complains he is missing legal documents
necessary to investigate the facts in this case. But as
previously noted, defendants re-served plaintiff courtesy
copies of key documents in this case on July 31,
2019. Moreover, on August 27, 2019, the
presiding U.S. District Judge, Julie A. Robinson, issued an
order finding plaintiff “has access to the relevant
documents needed to respond to Defendants'
motion.” To the extent plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration seeks copies of documents not currently in
his possession, Judge Robinson made arrangements for
plaintiff to request copies from the Clerk of Court at
court finds no justification for reconsidering its order
declining to appoint counsel for plaintiff at this time. Of
course, if the case survives defendants' pending
dispositive motion, the court has already given plaintiff
leave to file another motion for appointment of
is hereby informed that, within 14 days after he is served
with a copy of this order, he may, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
72 and D. Kan. Rule 72.1.4(a), file written objections to
this order by filing a motion for review of this order by the
presiding U.S. district judge. Plaintiff must file any
objections within the 14-day period if he wants to have
appellate review of this order. If plaintiff does not timely
file his objections, no court will allow appellate review.
THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of the order denying the motion to appoint
counsel is denied.
Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to plaintiff
via regular and certified mail.
 D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b).
 Wright ex rel. Trust Co.
of Kan. v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 259 F.3d 1226, 1235B36
(10th Cir. 2001); see also In re Motor Temperature Sales
Practices Litig., 707 F.Supp.2d 1145, 1166 (D. Kan.
2010) (“A court has discretion whether to grant a
motion to reconsider.”).
Coffeville Res. Refining & Mktg, LLC v. Liberty
Surplus Ins. Corp., 748 F.Supp.2d 1261, 1264 (D. Kan.
2010); see also Hammond v. City of Junction City,
Kan., 168 F.Supp.2d 1241, 1244 (D. Kan. 2001)
(“Reconsideration is appropriate where a court >has
obviously misapprehended a party's position on the facts
or the law.'”) (quoting Sithon ...