Opinion
Case No. 02-2399-JAR
September 17, 2002
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On September 13, 2002, Plaintiff Ali Sherkat filed this motion to set aside the Court's Memorandum and Sua Sponte Order of Dismissal signed on September 10, 2002 and entered on September 12, 2002. In his motion to set aside, Plaintiff states that the Court has jurisdiction over this action for injunctive relief against a state court, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Court analyzed its lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment, and for all of the reasons stated in its Order of Dismissal, concluded that it had no jurisdiction.
As the Tenth Circuit noted in Hawkins v. Evans, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a motion to reconsider, so such motions are construed as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend, if the motion is filed within ten days of the entry of judgment, as Plaintiff's motion was filed in this case.
64 F.3d 543, 546 (10th Cir. 1995).
In this Court, D. Kan. Rule 7.3 requires that motions seeking reconsideration of dispositive orders or judgments be filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or 60. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), the court may alter or amend an order or judgment, on one of three recognized grounds: an intervening change in controlling law, availability of new evidence previously unavailable, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Plaintiff's motion fails to demonstrate that any of these grounds exists. Plaintiff having failed to raise or show any of the recognized grounds for relief,
See Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000); Butler v. Boeing Co. 175 F. Supp.2d 1307, 1308 -1309 (D.Kan. 2001) (citing Major v. Benton, 647 F.2d 110, 112 (10th Cir. 1981); Burnett v. W. Res., Inc., 929 F. Supp. 1349, 1360 (D.Kan. 1996)). See also D. Kan. R. 7.3(b).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Order of Dismissal is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.