Kristich v. United States of America et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ORIN KRISTICH, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-23-544-R
)
FNU CASADY, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 57]. In
its order of August 14, 2024 [Doc. No. 54], the Court adopted in part a Report and
Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin, permitted the
federal and state law claims asserted against Defendants Casady and Foster to proceed past
the 	screening 	stage, 	and 	dismissed 	the 	remaining 	claims. 	Defendant 	now 	seeks
reconsideration of this order and “all dismissed claims regarding all the defendants.”
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a ‘motion to reconsider.’”
Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). However, “a district
court always has the inherent power to reconsider its interlocutory rulings.” Warren v. Am.
Bankers Ins. of FL, 507 F.3d 1239, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007). “Grounds warranting a motion
to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence
previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations
omitted). Reconsideration “is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a
Case 5:23-cv-00544-R Document 60 Filed 09/27/24 Page 1 of 2

2
party’s position, or the controlling law,” but “is not appropriate to revisit issues already
addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Id. (citations
omitted).
Here, Plaintiff’s motion largely re-urges arguments that have been previously
rejected and does not identify an intervening change in the law, new evidence, or clear
error 	that 	would 	warrant 	reconsideration. 	Accordingly, 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	for
Reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of September, 2024.
Case 5:23-cv-00544-R Document 60 Filed 09/27/24 Page 2 of 2