West v. (lnu) (1) et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DONALD JOSEPH WEST,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 24-3051-JWB
CRYSTAL CARTER, FCI
LEAVENWORTH, WARDEN,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “objections” (Doc. 146)1 to this court’s order
dismissing this matter (Doc. 143) as well as Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief (Doc. 147).
The court construes Plaintiff’s “objections” as a motion for reconsideration brought pursuant to
Rule 59. Defendant has not filed a response and the time for doing so has passed. Plaintiff also
moved for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 152.) For the reasons stated herein,
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 146) and request for injunctive relief (Doc. 147) are
DENIED and Plaintiff’s motion to appeal IFP (Doc. 152) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2
I. 	Facts
Donald West (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pro se against Crystal Carter, the Warden of
the Federal Correctional Institution in Leavenworth, Kansas (“Defendant”). 	(Doc. 79.) 	The
dispute centers on Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his conditions of confinement. 	Eventually,
1 Plaintiff also filed an objection regarding Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s motion for evidence. (Doc. 145.) This
objection is properly viewed as a reply brief and not an objection. Therefore, it is moot.
2 Plaintiff’s IFP motion did not include an accompanying financial affidavit. When determining whether a party is
eligible to file without prepayment of the fee, the court reviews a party’s financial affidavit and compares his monthly
expenses with the monthly income disclosed therein. Here, however, the court is unable to conduct the required
comparison where Plaintiff has not disclosed any financial information. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied
without prejudice.
Case 5:24-cv-03051-JWB-JBW Document 153 Filed 07/10/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Defendant filed a dispositive motion (Doc. 111) on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). 	See 42
U.S.C. § 1997e. 	Upon the motion becoming ripe, this court found that Plaintiff had failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies under the PLRA with respect to the six claims that survived
screening. (Docs. 143 at 15; see 85.) Thus, Plaintiff’s case was dismissed and judgment entered.
(Doc. 144.) Plaintiff has now moved to reconsider that order. The time to respond has passed and
the court is prepared to rule.
II. 	Standard
Although Plaintiff’s motion is framed as an “objection,” judgment has been entered.
Therefore, his motion is construed as one seeking to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e).
Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1167, n.9 (10th Cir. 2005); Yost v. Stout, 607 F.3d 1239, 1243
(10th Cir. 2010) (“Where the motion requests a substantive change in the district court’s judgment
or otherwise questions its substantive correctness, the motion is a Rule 59 motion, regardless of its
label.”). Rule 59(e) has a narrow scope. “Grounds which justify alteration or amendment under
Rule 59(e) include: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence that was
previously unavailable; or (3) a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Lenexa
95 Partners, LLC v. Kin, Inc., No. 20-2367-JWB, 2023 WL 171925, at *1 (D. Kan.) (citation
omitted), appeal dismissed, No. 23-3025, 2023 WL 5608807 (10th Cir. Apr. 27, 2023). A Rule
59(e) motion “is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that
could have been raised in prior briefing.” Rezac Livestock Comm. Co., Inc. v. Pinnacle Bank, No.
15-4958-DDC, 2019 WL 2613179, *9 (D. Kan. June 26, 2019) (quotation omitted). Rule 59(e)
motions “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that
Case 5:24-cv-03051-JWB-JBW Document 153 Filed 07/10/26 Page 2 of 4

3
could have been raised prior to entry of the judgment.” Nelson v. City of Albuquerque, 921 F.3d
925, 929 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008)).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court is to liberally construe his filings. Yang v.
Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). However, liberally construing filings does not
mean supplying additional factual allegations or constructing a legal theory on his behalf. Id.
III. 	Analysis
Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration, nearly in its entirety, is as follows:
[Plaintiff] timely objects to the district clerks [sic] order dismissing the case while
motions were pending, and without requested discovery materials, interrogatories
and depositions being provided for the inhumane treatment and severe health
hazzards [sic] by the defendants as well as retaliation and harassment and violations
of [Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)] policies and rights listed in the inmate
orientation handbook, all issues which passed screening process and injunctive
relief being ordered by the Honorable John W. Lungstrum, with no injunctive relief
ever being provided and no costs, fees ever being provided back to the Plaintiffs.
(Doc. 148 at 1–2.) Plaintiff’s lawsuit challenged his prison conditions. His case was dismissed
for failure to exhaust the BOP’s administrative remedy process. 	(See Doc. 143.) 	As the Tenth
Circuit has held, “[a] prisoner can sue over prison conditions only after exhausting administrative
proceedings.” Greer v. Dowling, 947 F.3d 1297, 1301 (10th Cir. 2020). Plaintiff does not argue
an intervening change of law or discovery of new evidence which was not previously available.
At best, he can only be asserting manifest injustice or clear error, presumably by arguing that the
court failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to him. 	Even so, Plaintiff fails to
address the sole grounds for which his lawsuit was dismissed: exhaustion of his administrative
remedies. In any event, the vague, conclusory nature of Plaintiff’s motion leaves the court wholly
unable to perform any meaningful review. Plaintiff’s motion fails to raise any basis under Rule
59 that would support relief from the judgment because his motion merely reiterates the same
assertions that were previously raised and rejected.
Case 5:24-cv-03051-JWB-JBW Document 153 Filed 07/10/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IV. 	Conclusion
THEREFORE, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 146) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s
motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 147) is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff’s motion to appeal IFP
(Doc. 152) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 10th day of July, 2026.
___s/ John W. Broomes_______________
JOHN W. BROOMES
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:24-cv-03051-JWB-JBW Document 153 Filed 07/10/26 Page 4 of 4