United States District Court, D. Kansas
JAMES C. STRADER, Plaintiff,
ROGER WERHOLTZ, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CROW, U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
matter, a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, comes before the Court on plaintiff's post-judgment
October 4, 2019, the Court dismissed this matter for failure
to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff submitted multiple
pleadings after the entry of judgment, and on October 17,
2019, the Court entered an order restricting his future
filings in this action, allowing him to file only an
objection to the restriction, a post-judgment motion, and a
notice of appeal without obtaining authorization from the
has filed an objection (Doc. 85), a motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 86), and a notice of appeal and motion
to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 87-88).
objection to the filing restriction
objection claims that he has been denied equal rights and
points out that he has sought the appointment of counsel. He
complains that the “clerk of the court and defendants
are clearly covering up .. for defendant, rapist/child
molesters … and claiming e-file errors.” (Doc.
85, p. 5.) He also repeats bare allegations of harm but
identifies no specific, supporting information.
these arguments persuade the Court that the filing
restriction should be modified or removed. The record in this
matter shows that plaintiff has repeatedly submitted
materials that do not support a comprehensible claim for
relief, and the Court remains convinced that a filing
restriction is warranted in this matter.
motion for reconsideration
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly authorize a
motion for reconsideration. Van Skiver v. United
States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991).
Rather, following a final judgment, the Rules permit a party
to file a motion to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) or a
motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).
motion for reconsideration may be construed as a motion to
alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) is filed within
28 days following the entry of judgment. See Price v.
Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1167 n. 9 (10th Cir.
2005). The Court may grant relief under Rule 59(e) only if
the moving party shows (1) there is an intervening change in
the controlling law, (2) there is new evidence that was
previously unavailable, or (3) there is a need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Hayes
Family Trust v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 845 F.3d
997, 1004 (10th Cir. 2017). Finally, a motion
under Rule 59(e) may be granted where a “court has
misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the
controlling law.” Servants of Paraclete v.
Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
Such a motion may not be used to “revisit issues
already addressed or advance arguments that could have been
raised in prior briefing.” Id.
motion for reconsideration does not present any argument that
justifies relief. He appears to complain broadly about
difficulties with electronic filing, about the typewritten
signature line that appears on the orders entered by the
Court, and about events he describes as obstruction of
justice. Because he does not provide any reasoned argument
that comes within the standards for granting relief under
Rule 59(e), the Court must deny his motion.
motion to proceed on ...