Aaebo-Akhan v. Akhan et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
AKOSUA AAEBO-AKHAN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 25-2500-JWB
KWESI AKHAN, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 37.)
On January 16, 2026, this court entered an order overruling Plaintiff’s objection to
Magistrate Judge Angel Mitchell’s order denying a motion for an exemption from Pacer fees.
(Doc. 29.) The court held that Plaintiff’s arguments raised in her objection were not presented to
Magistrate Judge Mitchell and, therefore, waived. (Doc. 30.) The court further held that Plaintiff
failed to show clear error in the decision. In a separate order, the court dismissed this action. (Doc.
31.)
After judgment was entered, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request for Reconsideration
& Notice of Appeal. (Doc. 33.) It was docketed as a notice of appeal.1 The Tenth Circuit has
now abated the appeal until the court considers Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration. Plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration asserts that she has been prejudiced by the decision to deny her request
to be exempt from Pacer fees because she does not have a copy of any pleadings she drafted or
orders filed prior to November 19, 2025 due to actions by a third party. (Id. at 1.) This document
1 After the abatement of the appeal, the clerk’s office duplicated the filing to show that Plaintiff had also sought a
motion for reconsideration from this court. (Doc. 37.)
Case 2:25-cv-02500-JWB-ADM Document 40 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 2

2
appears to be identical to the objection that was ruled on by the court. (Compare Docs. 29 and
37.) As previously noted by this court, Plaintiff’s argument in her objection was not raised in her
original motion for exemption of fees. 	(Doc. 24.) 	Rather, Plaintiff merely asked to be exempt
from paying Pacer fees and stated that she could not carry physical documents because she is
homeless. 	In her objection and request for reconsideration, Plaintiff asks this court to find that
decision was erroneous due to arguments that were never raised at the outset. As the Tenth Circuit
has previously held, “[i]ssues raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge's
recommendation are deemed waived.” Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996).
Therefore, this court’s decision upholding the ruling was not erroneous. Plaintiff offers no basis
for this court to reconsider its decision.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 37) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 28th day of 2026.
__s/ John Broomes_____________________
JOHN W. BROOMES
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02500-JWB-ADM Document 40 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 2