Landrith v. Kan. Attorney Gen., Case No. 12-2161-CM
| Decision Date | 30 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 12-2161-CM |
| Parties | BRET D. LANDRITH, Plaintiff, v. KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEREK SCHMIDT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
This matter is before the court on plaintiff Bret D. Landrith's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 92). On November 8, 2012, plaintiff moved the court to reconsider the portion of its November 2, 2012 order (Doc. 88) ("Order") dismissing all claims brought by plaintiff. In its Order, the court cautioned plaintiff that a motion for reconsideration of its Order under Local Rule 7.3 was not encouraged. In addition, the court limited any such motion and responses to five pages, and stated that no reply shall be filed. On November 7, 2012, plaintiff filed a nineteen-page motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Doc. 89). The court struck the motion for failure to comply with the court's above-described restrictions. The text entry striking the motion (Doc. 91) stated that although the court's Order addressed a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7.3, the restrictions also applied to similar motions filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The court also noted that the same legal standard applies under both Local Rule 7.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Plaintiff then filed the current motion.
On November 9, 2012, a day after filing this motion, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the court's Order to the Tenth Circuit (Doc. 93). Because plaintiff's notice of appeal was filed prior to disposition of the motion for reconsideration, the Tenth Circuit found that plaintiff's notice of appeal was ineffective to appeal the court's Order. The Tenth Circuit then abated the proceedings in the appeal (Doc. 98), pending notification of this court's disposition of the motion for reconsideration. Finally, several defendants filed a notice of service for a motion for sanctions on November 16, 2012 (Doc. 105) and defendant Brian Frost filed a motion for permanent injunction imposing filing restrictions (Doc. 106) on November 19, 2012. Defendant Frost's motion is also before the court.
The court finds that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration lacks a valid basis for reconsideration and denies the motion for the reasons below. Additionally, defendant Frost's motion for permanent injunction imposing filing restrictions is provisionally granted.
The decision whether to grant or deny a motion to reconsider is within the court's sound discretion. In re Baseball Bat Antitrust Litig., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1192 (D. Kan. 1999) (citing Hancock v. City of Okla. City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted)). There are three grounds that may justify reconsideration: (1) "an intervening change in controlling law"; (2) "availability of new evidence"; or (3) "the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Shinwari v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 25 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1208 (D. Kan. 1998) (citations omitted). The burden is on the moving party to show that one of these three bases for reconsideration apply. Classic Commc'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Servs. Co., Inc., 180 F.R.D. 397, 399 (D. Kan. 1998).
"[A] motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law." Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.2000). However, "it is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or to advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing." Coffeyville Res. Ref. & Mktg., LLC v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1264 (D. Kan. 2010). More importantly, a motion for reconsideration "is not a second chance for the losing party to make its strongest case or to dress up arguments that previously failed." Voelkel v. Gen. Motors Corp., 846 F. Supp. 1482, 1483 (D. Kan. 1994).
After reviewing plaintiff's motion, the court finds no grounds that warrant reconsideration. Plaintiff claims that reconsideration is necessary to correct clear error on nearly every issue addressed by the court in its Order. The court disagrees. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration does precisely what the cases above state it cannot do—it revisits issues already addressed, puts forth additional arguments that were formerly available, and attempts to make a stronger case by enhancing arguments that previously failed. See Coffeyville, 748 F. Supp. 2d at 1264; Voelkel, 846 F. Supp. at 1483.
This court spent considerable time, effort, and resources addressing plaintiff's arguments in its Order. As the court stated several times in its Order, plaintiff's amended complaint was not only lengthy, but difficult to comprehend. The court faced the task of ascertaining plaintiff's numerous and often incoherent claims and addressing them appropriately. In doing so, the court—in an abundance of caution—provided multiple bases for dismissal of plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. Most importantly, the court dismissed plaintiff's entire complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. 88 at 15.) The Order clearly stated that "all of plaintiff's claims are conclusory allegations that cannot withstand a motion to dismiss" and that "[i]n addition to the other reasons stated in this order, the court dismisses plaintiff's complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim." (Id.) Even assuming, arguendo, that one of the other bases provided by the court for dismissal was deemed insufficient, plaintiff's failure to state a claim against any defendant alone warrants dismissal.
Plaintiff has not provided any argument that causes the court to conclude it committed clear error. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to show that reconsideration is warranted and his motion is denied.
Defendant Frost's motion for permanent injunction urges the court to impose filing restrictions against plaintiff. While not by formal motion, defendant Robert D. Dennis also urged the court to impose filing restrictions in his response to plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 94 at 1.) In addition, the response filed by defendants Don Jordan, Rob Siedlecki, Phyllis Gilmore, Bob Corkins, John Badger, and David Weber included a footnote stating that these defendants have submitted a Rule 11 motion for non-monetary sanctions against plaintiff and intend to file the same within twenty-one days of their response. (Doc. 100 at 5 n.1.) The docket sheet includes a notice of service confirming that the motion for sanctions was submitted to plaintiff on November 16, 2012. (Doc. 105.)
"The right to access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional and there is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious." Sieverding v. Colo. Bar Ass'n, 469 F.3d 1340, 1343 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989)). A district court has the power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to enjoin litigants who abuse the judicial system by harassing their opponents. See Tripati, 878 F.2d at 352 (collecting cases).
Defendant Frost's well-reasoned motion thoroughly states why a permanent injunction imposing filing restrictions against plaintiff is warranted. Defendant Frost's motion correctly notes that injunctions restricting future filings "are appropriate where the litigant's lengthy and abusive history is set forth; the court provides guidelines as to what the litigant may do to obtain its permission to file an action; and the litigant receives notice and an opportunity to oppose the court's order before itis implemented." Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1077 (10th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Landrith's lengthy and abusive litigation history is discussed in the court's Order and is more extensively set forth in defendant Frost's motion. In an effort to avoid duplicative efforts and to expedite disposition of this matter for consideration by the Tenth Circuit, the court expressly adopts and incorporates into this order plaintiff's litigation history as set forth in its Order and by defendant Frost in his motion.
Taken directly from the court's Order:
To continue reading
Request your trial