Anaya v. Hudson et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JUSTIN ANAYA,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO. 25-3122-JWL
(fnu) HUDSON, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Although Plaintiff is currently
incarcerated at FCI-Beckley in Beaver, West Virginia, his claims are based on events occurring
during his detention at FCI-Leavenworth in Leavenworth, Kansas (“FCIL”). On September 2,
2025, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order to Show Cause (Doc. 7) (“MOSC”), ordering
Plaintiff to show good cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth
in the MOSC. Plaintiff filed a response (Doc. 11), and on October 28, 2025, the Court entered a
Memorandum and Order (Doc. 12) (“M&O”) dismissing this case for failure to state a claim. This
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Re-Open and Amend” (Doc. 14) filed on
November 25, 2025.
Parties seeking reconsideration of dispositive orders or judgments must file a motion
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60. “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no
later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because Plaintiff’s
motion was filed within 28 days of the entry of the judgment, the Court will treat Plaintiff’s motion
to re-open as a motion under Rule 59(e).
Case 5:25-cv-03122-JWL Document 16 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 5

2
A motion to alter or amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) may be granted when “the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.” Nelson v. City of
Albuquerque, 921 F.3d 925, 929 (10th Cir. 2019) (citing Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204
F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)). A motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e)
may be granted only if the moving party can establish: (1) an intervening change in the controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence that could not have been obtained previously through the
exercise of due diligence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Motions to alter and
amend are “not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could
have been raised in prior briefing.” Nelson, 921 F.3d at 929 (quoting Servants of the Paraclete,
204 F.3d at 1012). “[O]nce the district court enters judgment, the public gains a strong interest in
protecting the finality of judgments.” Id. at 929 (citation omitted). Reconsideration of a judgment
after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. See Templet v.
HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004); Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d
1236, 1242 (10th Cir. 2006); Zucker v. City of Farmington Hills, 643 F. App’x 555, 562 (6th Cir.
2016) (relief under R. 59(e) is rare).
Plaintiff asks the Court to re-open his case and to allow him to supplement his Complaint.
He makes four arguments for why his motion should be granted. First, he argues that he was
unable to exhaust his administrative remedies because the remedies were unavailable or attempting
to exhaust was futile. Plaintiff asks the Court to waive the exhaustion requirement. However, the
Court did not dismiss this matter on the basis of failure to exhaust.
Next, Plaintiff argues, for the first time, that “negligence by and through all Defendants is
a valid claim.” (Doc. 14, at 2.) Plaintiff is not correct; negligence is not a valid claim in a Bivens
Case 5:25-cv-03122-JWL Document 16 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 5

3
or § 1983 action because factual allegations of merely negligent conduct do not state a
constitutional claim. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328–31 (1986). “A federal prisoner's
claim of negligence by federal prison officials is only cognizable as a claim against the United
States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680.” Davis v. Ms. Star,
No. 24-CV-00614-LTB-RTG, 2024 WL 6474462, at *3–4 (D. Colo. Dec. 4, 2024), report and
recommendation adopted sub nom. Davis v. Star, No. 24-CV-00614-LTB-RTG, 2025 WL
2382655 (D. Colo. Jan. 22, 2025).
Plaintiff did not previously bring a negligence claim, a claim under the FTCA, or claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and § 1986. He may not raise new claims at this point. Motions to
alter and amend are “not appropriate to . . . advance arguments that could have been raised in prior
briefing.” Nelson, 921 F.3d at 929 (quoting Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012).
Moreover, § 1985 deals with conspiracies to interfere with civil rights. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 1985. Plaintiff’s bald allegation of a conspiracy is insufficient to state a claim. Plaintiff fails to
assert factual allegations in support of his claim. To state a claim for conspiracy, Plaintiff must
include in his complaint enough factual allegations to suggest that an agreement was made. Gee
v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1183 (10th Cir. 2010). A bare assertion of conspiracy, absent context
implying a meeting of the minds, fails to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Id.
Here, Plaintiff has previously made many allegations but has provided no factual information to
demonstrate an agreement was made between anyone. Such conclusory allegations fail to state a
plausible claim for relief.
Section 1986 provides for liability for damages if a person has “knowledge that any of the
wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed,
and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses
Case 5:25-cv-03122-JWL Document 16 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 5

4
so to do . . ..” 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Thus, “the § 1986 claim is dependent upon the existence of a
valid claim under § 1985.” Brown v. Reardon, 770 F.2d 896, 907 (10th Cir. 1985) (citations
omitted); see also Cline v. Utah, 2020 WL 2476168, at *2 (D. Utah May 13, 2020) (“Without a
valid claim under § 1985, Plaintiffs’ § 1986 claim similarly fails.”); Chubb v. Brownback, 2016
WL 5410615, at *7 (D. Kan. Sept. 28, 2016) (because plaintiff failed to allege a plausible claim
for relief under § 1985(3) “his claims under § 1986 also fail”). As stated above, Plaintiff’s claim
under § 1985 fails and therefore his § 1986 claim also fails.
Furthermore, any claims under § 1985 or § 1986 would be barred by the same statute of
limitations that bars Plaintiff’s claim under Bivens, as explained in the MOSC.
Last, Plaintiff’s argument that the defendants engaged in criminal conduct is to no avail.
Criminal statutes generally do not create a private right of action. See Touche Ross & Co. v.
Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 568 (1979) (“As we recently have emphasized, the fact that a federal
statute has been violated and some person harmed does not automatically give rise to a private
cause of action in favor of that person.” (internal citation and quotation omitted)).
Plaintiff’s motion also rehashes the same issues that were raised and rejected previously in
this case. Motions to alter and amend are “not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed.”
Nelson, 921 F.3d at 929 (quoting Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012).
Plaintiff does not meet the exacting standard for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). He has
not demonstrated an intervening change in the controlling law, the availability of new evidence
that could not have been obtained previously through the exercise of due diligence, or the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005,
1012 (10th Cir. 2000). In sum, Plaintiff has failed to meet the standard required for this Court to
alter or amend its October 28, 2025 Order and Judgment, and that ruling stands.
Case 5:25-cv-03122-JWL Document 16 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Clerk is directed to reopen
this case for purposes of entering this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Re-Open and Amend (Doc. 14)
is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated December 10, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03122-JWL Document 16 Filed 12/10/25 Page 5 of 5