Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 99-2517-CM.
May 8, 2001
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Reverend Nolan McKenzie appears pro se in this matter. Plaintiff sued defendant MCI Worldcom, Inc. for defamation, consumer discrimination, and false representation. On August 29, 2000, the court granted defendant's motion for more definite statement and ordered that plaintiff cure his defective pleading. Plaintiff failed to comply with that and other court orders. Accordingly, this court ordered on March 22, 2001 that plaintiff's original complaint be stricken and that plaintiff's case be dismissed in its entirety.
Plaintiff has subsequently filed two new pleadings, Plaintiff's Motion for Order for Damages Against the Court (Doc. 47) and Plaintiff's Motion for an Order to Strike the Court's Memorandum and Order (Doc. 48). Because plaintiff appears pro se, the court will construe plaintiff's pleadings as motions for reconsideration.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognize no "motion for reconsideration." Instead, courts construe such a filing in one of two ways. If the motion is filed within ten days of the entry of judgment, the motion is treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e). Alternatively, if the motion is filed more than ten days after the entry of judgment, it is considered a motion seeking relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b). See United States v. Emmons, 107 F.3d 762, 764 (10th Cir. 1997). In this case, plaintiff filed his motions more that ten days after the court's order. Accordingly, the court will construe plaintiff's motions as ones brought pursuant to Rule 60(b), which provides in relevant part:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
The court struggles in deciphering plaintiff's arguments. To the extent that it can, the court construes plaintiff's briefs as essentially requesting the court to reconsider plaintiff's "Second Response to Defendant's Motion for More Definite Statement" and arguing that he has complied with defendant's motion for more definite statement.
Rule 60(b) is not available to allow a party merely to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the reargument merely advances new arguments or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original argument. Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 577 (10th Cir. 1996). In this case, plaintiff merely attempts to reargue his position. Upon reconsideration, the court finds that plaintiff has presented no arguments or facts which were not available for presentation at the time of his original argument, nor has plaintiff presented new arguments or facts to support his position. Plaintiff's motions are denied.
Troubling to the court is plaintiff's statement in his brief, "Given that plaintiff's case remains open since it is not technically closed, other than a `Default Judgment' against co-defendants, pending the consideration of the court." The court is compelled to remind plaintiff that his case is, in fact, closed. The court dismissed plaintiff's action on March 22, 2001. While plaintiff may hereafter raise meritorious arguments, this court is no longer the proper forum in which to raise such arguments. If plaintiff takes issue with this court's rulings, plaintiff's only avenue from this point forward is to appeal. Accordingly, if plaintiff files motions with this district court after the issuance of this order, any such motions will be summarily denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Order for Damages Against the Court (Doc. 47) and Plaintiff's Motion for an Order to Strike the Court's Memorandum and Order (Doc. 48) are denied.
Dated this day of January 2002 at Kansas City, Kansas.