Nguyen v. DeJoy

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
QUANG D. NGUYEN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-22-1102-D
)
LOUIS DeJOY, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s Order denying
Plaintiff leave to file a reply out of time [Doc. No. 61]. Plaintiff has also filed a motion
titled, “Motion for Leave to Reconsider Plaintiff’s Reply to Oppose Defendant’s Response
in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint” [Doc.
No. 62]. The Court construes the latter as a second motion to reconsider the Court’s Order
denying Plaintiff leave to file a reply out of time.
For the reasons stated in the Court’s previous Order [Doc. No. 59], the Court denied
Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. Related to Plaintiff’s motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint, Plaintiff has filed: a motion for leave to file a reply
out of time [Doc. No. 53], which the Court denied [Doc. No. 57]; an untimely reply filed
without leave of Court [Doc. No. 55], which was stricken [Doc. No. 56]; a “Motion to
Supplement Plaintiff’s [Motion for Leave] with Exhibits and Evidence” [Doc. No. 58],
which was denied [Doc. No. 60]; and the two present motions to reconsider [Doc. Nos. 61,
62].
Case 5:22-cv-01102-D Document 63 Filed 10/01/24 Page 1 of 3

2
“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 Fla., 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). A motion to reconsider, however, “has dubious parameters,” and “[m]any district
courts vigorously disfavor these motions.” United States v. Cos, 498 F.3d 1115, 1123 n.2
(10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Judge Wayne Alley’s letter, in which he notes the “alarming
practice and regularity with which motions to reconsider are filed after a decision
unfavorable to a party's case”).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motions to reconsider, and neither filing provides
a basis for the Court to reconsider its decision to deny Plaintiff leave to file a reply out of
time. Further, even had the Court permitted Plaintiff to file a reply out of time, nothing in
Plaintiff’s proposed reply [Doc. No. 55] would have changed the Court’s determination
that Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint, if allowed, would be futile. [Order,
Doc. No. 59]. Plaintiff is needlessly delaying this litigation by filing repetitive (and
lengthy) motions seeking reconsideration. In the future, Plaintiff should refrain from filing
a motion to reconsider as an automatic reaction to an adverse ruling.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Reconsider
Plaintiff’s Motion to Permit Plaintiff to File His Reply to Defendant’s Response Out of
Case 5:22-cv-01102-D Document 63 Filed 10/01/24 Page 2 of 3

3
Time” [Doc. No. 61] and “Motion for Leave to Reconsider Plaintiff’s Reply to Oppose
Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint” [Doc. No. 62] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for any future motion to reconsider filed by
Plaintiff, Defendant need not respond unless ordered by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of October, 2024.
TIMOTHY 	. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:22-cv-01102-D Document 63 Filed 10/01/24 Page 3 of 3