Sullivan v. Department of Defense

D. Kansas

Sullivan v. Department of Defense

DecidedAugust 30, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-02201

StatusUnknown

This text of Sullivan v. Department of Defense (Sullivan v. Department of Defense) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sullivan v. Department of Defense, (D. Kan. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ZACHARY D. SULLIVAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v. ) ) No. 23-2201-KHV DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et. al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 3, 2023, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action. On August 15, 2023, pursuant to various orders filed on July 24, July 27 and August 15, 2023, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint against all defendants. See Judgment (Doc. #100). This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion to “Reconsider” My Civil Law Suit (Doc. #101) filed August 18, 2023. Because plaintiff filed this motion within 28 days of the Court’s entry of judgment, the Court construes it as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. For reasons set forth below, the Court overrules plaintiff’s motion. A party may seek reconsideration of a dispositive order or judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has discretion whether to grant a party’s motion to reconsider. Taylor v. Colo. Dep’t of Health Care Pol’y & Fin., 811 F.3d 1230, 1236 (10th Cir. 2016). The Court may recognize any one of three grounds justifying alteration or amendment of a judgment under Rule 59(e): an intervening change in controlling law, availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff asks that the Court reconsider its orders dismissing his amended complaint against various defendants. Despite providing new information on his recent incarceration, plaintiff has not cited an intervening change in controlling law, presented new evidence or demonstrated any clear error or manifest injustice which would require the Court to reconsider its dismissal of plaintiff’s amended complaint against all defendants. The Court therefore overrules plaintiff’s

motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #101) filed August 18, 2023, which the Court construes as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is OVERRULED. Dated this 30th day of August, 2023 at Kansas City, Kansas. s/ Kathryn H. Vratil KATHRYN H. VRATIL United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ZACHARY D. SULLIVAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v. ) ) No. 23-2201-KHV DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et. al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 3, 2023, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action. On August 15, 2023, pursuant to various orders filed on July 24, July 27 and August 15, 2023, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint against all defendants. See Judgment (Doc. #100). This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion to “Reconsider” My Civil Law Suit (Doc. #101) filed August 18, 2023. Because plaintiff filed this motion within 28 days of the Court’s entry of judgment, the Court construes it as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. For reasons set forth below, the Court overrules plaintiff’s motion. A party may seek reconsideration of a dispositive order or judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has discretion whether to grant a party’s motion to reconsider. Taylor v. Colo. Dep’t of Health Care Pol’y & Fin., 811 F.3d 1230, 1236 (10th Cir. 2016). The Court may recognize any one of three grounds justifying alteration or amendment of a judgment under Rule 59(e): an intervening change in controlling law, availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff asks that the Court reconsider its orders dismissing his amended complaint against various defendants. Despite providing new information on his recent incarceration, plaintiff has not cited an intervening change in controlling law, presented new evidence or demonstrated any clear error or manifest injustice which would require the Court to reconsider its dismissal of plaintiff’s amended complaint against all defendants. The Court therefore overrules plaintiff’s

motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #101) filed August 18, 2023, which the Court construes as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is OVERRULED. Dated this 30th day of August, 2023 at Kansas City, Kansas. s/ Kathryn H. Vratil KATHRYN H. VRATIL United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sullivan v. Department of Defense, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-department-of-defense-ksd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack