Cozart v. Department of Corrections

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

DELMOND COZART, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-254-R ) BEN MASON, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [Doc. No. 19] asking the Court to “reconsider its judgment entered on 7-8-25 dismissing defendant GEO with prejudice.” For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied. First, Plaintiff’s motion mischaracterizes the Court’s ruling. On July 8, 2025, the Court entered an order adopting a Report and Recommendation, in part, and dismissed certain claims against some of the named defendants. Pertinent here, the Court dismissed without prejudice the claims asserted against the GEO Group because Plaintiff’s Complaint did not include sufficient factual content to state a plausible claim for municipal liability. Because claims against other defendants survived the screening process, the case is proceeding and a final judgment was not entered. Second, Plaintiff has not identified any grounds that would warrant reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing the claims against GEO Group. See Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (“Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”’) (citations omitted). Liberally construed, Plaintiff's motion suggests that he has additional factual allegations that he could plead in support of his claim against the GEO Group. This type of argument is more appropriately asserted in a motion for leave to amend the complaint and does not provide a basis to reconsider the Court’s finding that Plaintiff's claim was not adequately alleged. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6" day of August, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE