Coffman v. Hutchinson Community College, No. 5:2017cv04070 - Document 111 (D. Kan. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 110 Motion for miscellaneous releif. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 7/18/18. Mailed to pro se party Dustin Coffman by regular mail. (msb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Coffman v. Hutchinson Community College Doc. 111 I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF KANSAS DUSTI N D. COFFMAN, Plaint iff vs. Case No. 17- 4070- SAC HUTCHI NSON COMMUNI TY COLLEGE, et al., Defendant s. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaint iff, Dust in D. Coffm an, pro se filed a civil right s act ion alleging he was dism issed from t he nursing program at Hut chinson Com m unit y College ( “ HCC” ) in a m anner t hat violat ed his federal and st at e const it ut ional right s and t hat creat ed act ionable st at e com m on- law claim s. On June 22, 2018, t he court filed a fort y- seven page order grant ing t he defendant s’ m ot ion t o dism iss, and j udgm ent was ent ered t hat sam e day. ECF# # 108 and 109. On July 17, 2018, Mr. Coffm an subm it t ed for filing a docum ent which lacks a t it le and is unclear as t o t he relief being sought . ECF# 110. For docket ing purposes, t he clerk ent it led t he docum ent , “ m ot ion for m iscellaneous relief.” I d. I n his filing, t he plaint iff m akes several disj oint ed point s. First , he not es t hat t he court ’s order was filed on June 22, 2018, was m ailed t o him t hrough regular post al service, and was not received by him unt il July 5, 2018. ECF# 110, pp. 1- 2. Mr. Coffm an next apparent ly offers an Dockets.Justia.com “ agreem ent ” on cert ain “ t erm s.” I d. at p. 2. He will not oppose t he j udgm ent ( ECF# 109) or t he court ’s m em orandum and order ( ECF# 108) and will forego any Rule 26 conference in exchange for m ediat ion pursuant t o D. Kan. Rule 16.3( c) . I d. at pp. 2- 3. Mr. Coffm an request s cert ain condit ions for t his agreem ent wit h one of t hem being t hat t his court order a non- part y int ernet sit e rem ove “ t he fake phot o of” him and “ fake inform at ion” about him . I d. at pp. 4- 6. Mr. Coffm an repeat s t hat his “ Mot ion is not opposed” t o t he court ’s order and j udgm ent , but t his is apparent ly condit ioned on a confident ial “ set t lem ent ” wit h HCC. I d. at p. 6. He concludes his filing wit h, “ Would appreciat e not having t o t ake t his t o t ent h circuit court . But will if have t o t ake bot h cases t o t he Suprem e Court .” I d. He at t aches t o his filing t he last page of t he court ’s prior order wit h handwrit ing on it t hat suggest s he want s a st ay of t he court ’s prior order and he challenges t hat order as lacking a signat ure, wat er m ark, and “ paper crim p seal.” I d. at p. 8. The court first considers t he possibilit y t hat Mr. Coffm an’s filing is int ended t o be a m ot ion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59( e) t hat im pliedly challenges t he procedural effect iveness of t he court ’s prior order in lacking an act ual signat ure, wat er m ark, and seal. Because t he court ’s dism issal order and j udgm ent were disposit ive of t he case, we look t o D. Kan. Rule 7.3( a) which provides t hat , “ [ p] art ies seeking reconsiderat ion of disposit ive orders or j udgm ent s m ust file a m ot ion pursuant t o Fed. R. Civ. P. 59( e) or 60.” Since t he plaint iff filed his m ot ion wit hin t he 28- day period of Fed. R. 2 Civ. P. 59( e) , t he court will look t o it s st andards. See Allender v. Rayt heon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1242 ( 10t h Cir. 2006) ( “ Whet her a m ot ion is const rued as a Rule 59( e) or Rule 60( b) m ot ion depends upon t he t im e in which t he m ot ion is filed.” ) “ A m ot ion t o alt er or am end a j udgm ent pursuant t o Fed. R. Civ. P. 59( e) m ay be grant ed only if t he m oving part y can est ablish ( 1) an int ervening change in cont rolling law; ( 2) t he availabilit y of new evidence t hat could not have been obt ained previously t hrough t he exercise of due diligence; or ( 3) t he need t o correct clear error or prevent m anifest inj ust ice.” Wilkins v. Packerware Corp., 238 F.R.D. 256, 263 ( D. Kan. 2006) , aff'd, 260 Fed.Appx. 98 ( 10t h Cir. 2008) ( cit ing Brum ark Corp. v. Sam son Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 ( 10t h Cir. 1995) ) ; see also Servant s of t he Paraclet e v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 ( 10t h Cir. 2000) . A 59( e) m ot ion “ is not a second chance for t he losing part y t o m ake it s st rongest case or t o dress up argum ent s t hat previously failed.” Voelkel v. Gen. Mot ors Corp., 846 F. Supp. 1482, 1483 ( D. Kan.) , aff'd, 43 F.3d 1484 ( 10t h Cir. 1994) ( cit at ion om it t ed) . The part y seeking relief from a j udgm ent bears t he burden of dem onst rat ing t hat he sat isfies t he prerequisit es for such relief. Van Skiver v. U.S., 952 F.2d 1241, 1243–44 ( 10t h Cir. 1991) , cert . denied, 506 U.S. 828 ( 1992) . Mr. Coffm an has not carried his burden of dem onst rat ing any grounds for relief under Rule 59( e) or Rule 60( b) . His concerns over t he court ’s order and j udgm ent lacking original signat ures, wat erm arks and 3 seals are not only unsupport ed by any legal cit at ions of aut horit y but are fully addressed by t he court ’s rules. First , Fed. R. Civ. P. 5( d) ( 3) aut horizes federal court s t o allow filing by elect ronic m eans and st at es t hat , “ [ a] paper filed elect ronically in com pliance wit h a local rule is a writ t en paper for purposes of t hese rules.” Thus, a paper elect ronically filed in com pliance wit h local rules const it ut es a proper writ t en paper filing for purposes of t he federal rules. The local rules for t he Dist rict of Kansas provide in part : ( a) En t r y in t h e Civil D ock e t . All orders, decrees, j udgm ent s, and proceedings of t he court will be filed in accordance wit h t hese rules, which will const it ut e ent ry in t he civil docket under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79. The court or court personnel will file all such docum ent s elect ronically. ( b) Ele ct r on ic Sign a t u r e . Any such docum ent filed elect ronically wit hout t he original signat ure of a j udge, m agist rat e j udge, or clerk has t he sam e force and effect as if t he j udge, m agist rat e j udge, or clerk, respect ively, had signed a paper copy of t he order and it had been ent ered on t he docket in a convent ional m anner. D. Kan. Rule 5.4.4. Last ly, “ [ t ] he official record of an elect ronically- filed docum ent is t he elect ronic recording of t he docum ent as st ored by t he court .” D. Kan. Rule 5.4.3. The court ’s m em orandum and order and accom panying j udgm ent were elect ronically filed in com pliance wit h t hese local rules and t hereby have “ t he sam e force and effect ” as a convent ionally filed paper copy. Moreover, t he elect ronically filed and st ored copy of t he court ’s order and t he j udgm ent const it ut e t he official record and civil docket in t his case. The plaint iff’s concerns are not ed and sum m arily dism issed. 4 The plaint iff next apparent ly seeks an agreem ent foregoing his appellat e right s in exchange for m ediat ion pursuant t o D. Kan. Rule 16.3. To t he ext ent t hat t he plaint iff is seeking t his com prom ise wit h t he defendant s, he m ay pursue t his wit hout filing anyt hing of record. I f t he plaint iff is asking t his court t o order m ediat ion, t hen t he court would deny t his request for t he following reasons. Rule 16.3 opens, “ Pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. § 652, t he court m ay require lit igant s in civil cases t o consider t he use of an alt ernat ive disput e resolut ion ( “ ADR” ) process.” This federal st at ut e confers j urisdict ion upon dist rict court s t o adopt local rules t hat require, “ Lit igant s in all civil cases consider t he use of an alt ernat ive disput e resolut ion process at an appropriat e st age in t he lit igat ion.” 28 U.S.C. § 652( a) . Reading Rule 16.3 in light of § 652( a) shows t he court ’s power t o order ADR is lim it ed t o “ an appropriat e st age in t he lit igat ion.” Having dism issed t his case and direct ing t he ent ry of j udgm ent , t he court finds now is not an appropriat e st age of lit igat ion for ordering ADR. I ndeed, t he post ure of t his case is t hat lit igat ion has concluded but for som e very narrow procedural post - j udgm ent m ot ions in Rules 59 and 60. The plaint iff, however, does not raise any viable argum ent s for relief under eit her rule, so t his case is effect ively no longer in lit igat ion, and t he court ’s aut horit y t o order ADR is lacking. I T I S THEREFORE ORDERED t hat t he plaint iff’s m ot ion for m iscellaneous relief ( ECF# 110) is denied. 5 Dat ed t his 18 t h day of July, 2018, Topeka, Kansas. s/ Sam A. Crow Sam A. Crow, U.S. Dist rict Senior Judge 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
