Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-2487-KHV
December 30, 2002.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Ali Sherkat, pro se, brings suit against the Johnson County District Court for violation of equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On October 22, 2002, the Court entered an order which dismissed plaintiff's claims for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #17). This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's Motion To Amend Judgment (Doc. #20) filed October 28, 2002; plaintiff's Motion To Deny Defendant's "Motion For Immediate Remand" (Doc. #21) filed October 28, 2002; and plaintiff's Motion/Application For Order For Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States (Doc. #24) filed November 15, 2002.
Legal Standard
A motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., is essentially a motion for reconsideration. See Schweitzer-Reschke v. Avnet, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 530, 532 (D.Kan. 1995). The Court has discretion whether to grant or deny a motion to reconsider. See Hancock v. City of Okla. City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir. 1988). The Court may recognize any one of three grounds justifying reconsideration: an intervening change in controlling law, availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Major v. Benton, 647 F.2d 110, 112 (10th Cir. 1981); Burnett v. W. Res., Inc., 929 F. Supp. 1349, 1360 (D.Kan. 1996).
Analysis
Plaintiff asks the Court to amend its judgment, arguing that the Court's order does not address his claim that defendant violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its previous order, the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims because they are inextricably intertwined with the merits of his state court proceeding. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #17). Contrary to plaintiff's belief, the order applies to his Fourteenth Amendment claims. Plaintiff provides no basis to amend the Court's judgment. His motion to do so is therefore denied. In light of this ruling, the Court overrules as moot plaintiff's remaining motions.
On November 12, 2002, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. See Doc. #23. On December 3, 2002, the Tenth Circuit entered an order which abated the appeal pending this Court's resolution of plaintiff's motion to amend judgment. See id. Pursuant to the Tenth Circuit's order, the appeal will become effective once the Court enters this order. See id.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion To Amend Judgment (Doc. #20) filed October 28, 2002 be and hereby is OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion To Deny Defendant's "Motion For Immediate Remand" (Doc. #21) filed October 28, 2002 be and hereby is OVERRULED as moot.
Because the Court has denied plaintiff's motion to amend judgment, plaintiff's claims remain dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the Court does not reach defendant's motion for immediate remand.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion/Application For Order For Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States (Doc. #24) filed November 15, 2002 be and hereby is OVERRULED as moot.
Plaintiff has already filed an appeal with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. See footnote 1, supra. Any requests regarding appeal should be made to that court.