United States District Court, D. Kansas
SCOTT B. SULLIVAN, Plaintiff,
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROBINSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Scott B.
Sullivan's Motion for Relief Under Rule 59(e) (Doc. 114),
in which he asks the Court to reconsider its Memorandum and
Order dismissing this case under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Doc.
Rule 7.3(a) provides that “[p]arties seeking
reconsideration of dispositive orders or judgments must file
a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or
60.” Grounds which justify alteration or
amendment under Rule 59(e) include: (1) an intervening change
in controlling law; (2) new evidence that was previously
unavailable; or (3) a need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice. A Rule 59(e) motion does not permit a
losing party to revisit issues previously addressed or to
present new legal theories or facts that could have been
raised earlier.Rather, such a motion “is appropriate
where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's
position, or the controlling law.”
Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court is mindful that
it must construe his pleadings liberally and apply a less
stringent standard than that applicable to attorneys.
Nonetheless, Plaintiff presents no valid legal argument to
warrant relief from the Court's Order. Although quite
difficult to follow at times, Plaintiff's motion
identifies neither an intervening change in the law nor new
evidence that was previously unavailable. To the extent that
Plaintiff contends that the Court committed clear error,
Plaintiff misstates the law and fails to establish that the
Court has misapprehended the facts or his position. Finally,
the Court does not consider any of Plaintiff's arguments
raised for the first time in his motion to alter or amend the
judgment under Rule 59(e).
Court conducted a thorough review and analysis of
Plaintiff's 128-page Amended Complaint and five separate
motions to dismiss filed in this matter before determining
that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under federal law. In
addition to this case, Plaintiff filed two largely similar
actions in which the Court ruled on a total of nine motions
to dismiss. Plaintiff has now filed the same or
virtually the same motion to alter or amend in each case,
along with the same reply in support. Much of Plaintiff's
motion recounts the symptoms that he suffers, his past
attempts to obtain medical treatment and the stigma facing
sufferers of his condition, and the extent to which he
believes he has been deceived, intimidated, threatened,
coerced, harassed, extorted, and retaliated against by
medical professionals over the years. While the Court
certainly has sympathy for Plaintiff's physical and
emotional pain and suffering, and for his difficulty as a
pro se plaintiff, his motion simply fails to provide
a basis for relief under Rule 59(e). Accordingly,
Plaintiff's motion is denied.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff
Scott B. Sullivan's Motion for Relief Under Rule 59(e)
(Doc. 114) is denied.
IS SO ORDERED.
D. Kan. Rule 7.3(a).
Hayes Family Trust v. State Farm
Fire & Cas. Co., 845 F.3d 997, 1004 (10th Cir. 2017)
(citing Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d
1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)).
Servants, 204 F.3d at
Id. (citation omitted);
Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir.
Whitney v. New Mexico, 113
F.3d 1170, 1173 (10th Cir. 1997). Certain defendants argue
that Plaintiff's motion is untimely to the extent that it
seeks alteration or amendment of the Court's order
denying Plaintiff leave to amend. See Doc. 124 at 2
(citing D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b); Welch v. Centex Home Equity
Co., 224 F.R.D. 490, 493 (D. Kan. 2004)). Under D. Kan.
Rule 7.3(b), “parties seeking reconsideration of
non-dispositive orders must file a motion within 14 days
after the order is filed unless the court extends the
time.” See Welch, 224 F.R.D. at 493
(“Insofar as plaintiff asks the court to reconsider the
aspect of its . . . order in which the court denied
plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, the court must
construe the motion as one to reconsider a non-dispositive
order. As such, the motion is governed by D. Kan. Rule
7.3(b)”). Although ...