Creamer v. Voss

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MARJORIE A. CREAMER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 24-CV-4100-EFM-GEB

A. VOSS,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On March 21, 2025, Magistrate Judge Birzer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (Doc. 7). On April 16, 2025, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Birzer’s R&R and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety (Doc. 8). On April 28, 2025, Plaintiff moved to reopen the case and for reconsideration of the Court’s Order adopting the R&R (Doc. 10), which the Court denied (Doc. 11). Plaintiff has now filed another Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12). A motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) may be granted when “the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.”1 The moving party must establish: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that

1 Nelson v. City of Albuquerque, 921 F.3d 925, 929 (10th Cir. 2019) (citing Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)). could not have been obtained previously through the exercise of due diligence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Reconsideration of a judgment is an extraordinary remedy, and courts should grant it sparingly.* Plaintiff's Motion does not meet the exacting standard required for the Court to alter or amend its judgment. She does not show the Court misapprehended the facts, the controlling law, or her position. Therefore, the Court’s ruling stands. If Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s decision, her remedy is to file an appeal. A motion for reconsideration is not intended to give litigants multiple opportunities to challenge a Court’s ruling. The Court discourages Plaintiff from filing any further motions for reconsideration on this matter. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 19th day of August, 2025.

ERIC F. MELGREN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

? Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. 3 Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

-2-