Opinion
20-2371-DDC
06-28-2021
PAMELA LYNN CUMMINGS, Plaintiff, v. AARON OTHMER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
James P. O'Hara U.S. Magistrate Judge
The pro se plaintiff, Pamela Lynn Cummings, has filed a motion (ECF No. 28) to lift the stay entered on January 8, 2021 (ECF No. 17). The motion also renews plaintiff's request to deny defendants' motion to dismiss and grant plaintiff's motions for default.
To the extent plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the order on defendants' motion to stay, the motion is denied. Motions for reconsideration may be granted only if the moving party can establish: “(1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence, or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” The decision whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is committed to the court's discretion. A motion for reconsideration should not be used to “rehash previously rejected arguments or to offer new legal theories or facts.” Such a motion “is not a second chance for the losing party to make its strongest case or to dress up arguments that previously failed.” A motion for reconsideration is “not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed.”
D. Kan. Rule 7.3. See also Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
Wright ex rel. Trust Co. of Kan. v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 259 F.3d 1226, 1235-36 (10th Cir. 2001).
Theno v. Tonganoxie Unified Sch. Dist. No. 464, 377 F.Supp.2d 952, 976 (D. Kan. 2005) (citing Demster v. City of Lenexa, Kan., 359 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1184 (D. Kan. 2005)).
Fears v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cty., No. CV 17-2668-KHV, 2018 WL 5435403, at *1 (D. Kan. Oct. 29, 2018) (citing Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 101 F.3d 1324, 1332 (10th Cir. 1996)).
Fears, 2018 WL 5435403, at *1.
Plaintiff hasn't cited this standard nor does she address any of these factors. Indeed, she doesn't even address the stay in the body of her motion; it's only mentioned in the title. Most of the motion is focused on renewed requests for rulings on the dispositive motions in this case. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) is pending before the presiding U.S. District Judge, Daniel D. Crabtree. So are plaintiff's three motions for default (ECF Nos. 13, 18, 24). Judge Crabtree will rule on those motions. Plaintiff's repeated requests for rulings won't expedite the process.
The undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge, James P. O'Hara, previously granted defendants' motion to stay largely because of these pending dispositive motions. The undersigned also noted plaintiff's repetitive litigation against defendants and the burden plaintiff has imposed on them. Filings such as the instant motion are illustrative of this burden.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 28) is denied.