From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kester v. State

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Aug 8, 2005
Civil Action No. 05-2031-CM (D. Kan. Aug. 8, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-2031-CM.

August 8, 2005


ORDER


The court entered judgment in this case for defendants on June 9, 2005. On June 20, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Relief from or to Amend Judgment (Doc. 24). In their motion, plaintiffs ask the court not to award defendants their costs of the action because plaintiffs brought the action in good faith. All defendants but pro se defendant Thomas Raithel responded, representing that they do not intend to seek costs from plaintiffs. With respect to defendants who do not seek costs, plaintiffs' motion is moot. With respect to defendant Thomas Raithel, the court denies plaintiffs' motion, as they have asserted no basis for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or 60(b). See AeroTech, Inc. v. Estes, 110 F.3d 1523, 1527 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding that the district court's finding that plaintiff did not initiate its suit in bad faith was insufficient to permit the court to deny costs, as all parties have an obligation to act in good faith). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from or to Amend Judgment (Doc. 24) is denied.


Summaries of

Kester v. State

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Aug 8, 2005
Civil Action No. 05-2031-CM (D. Kan. Aug. 8, 2005)
Case details for

Kester v. State

Case Details

Full title:CHARLOTTE YVONNE KESTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF KANSAS, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Aug 8, 2005

Citations

Civil Action No. 05-2031-CM (D. Kan. Aug. 8, 2005)

Citing Cases

Tso v. Murray

Here, Plaintiff failed to assert the violation of a federal right, because his § 1983 claims are based on the…

Green v. Corrections Corporation of America

At this point, the Court could dismiss Officer Medill from this action or allow plaintiff additional time in…