Stewart (ID 2000073290) v. Zmuda et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PATRICK STEWART,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO. 25-3256-JWL
JEFF ZMUDA, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in custody
at the Ellsworth Correctional Facility in Ellsworth, Kansas (“ECF”). The Court granted Plaintiff
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On January 15, 2026, the Court entered a Memorandum and
Order to Show Cause (Doc. 5) (“MOSC”) granting Plaintiff an opportunity to show good cause
why his Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state an Eighth Amendment claim.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) in response to the MOSC. The Court screened the
Amended Complaint and found that it did not cure the deficiencies noted in the MOSC and did not
state a claim. The Court entered a Memorandum and Order dismissing this case on March 23,
2026. (“M&O,” Doc. 8.)
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 10) filed
on April 16, 2026. Because Plaintiff’s motion was filed within 28 days after the entry of the order
of dismissal, the Court will treat it as a motion under Rule 59. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A motion
to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”).
Case 5:25-cv-03256-JWL Document 11 Filed 04/16/26 Page 1 of 3

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, 204 F.3d at 1012. 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).
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff merely repeats arguments that he has already
made or makes arguments that he could have previously made. Plaintiff does not point to an
intervening change in the law or to new evidence and has not demonstrated clear error or manifest
injustice. Plaintiff does not meet the exacting standard for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See
Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
In sum, Plaintiff has failed to meet the standard required for this Court to alter or amend
its March 23, 2026 Order and Judgment, and that ruling stands.
Case 5:25-cv-03256-JWL Document 11 Filed 04/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED 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 for Reconsideration (Doc. 10) is
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated April 16, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03256-JWL Document 11 Filed 04/16/26 Page 3 of 3