Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Plaintiff Akosua Aaebo-Akhan’s motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The court reaffirmed dismissal of her claims against the defendants, including claims involving paternity, child support, defamation, churches, the IRS, and HUD, based on doctrines and deficiencies including Rooker-Feldman, lack of personal jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, failure to state a claim, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and untimeliness. The court also declined to consider new allegations and arguments that could have been raised earlier.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration should be construed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and granted.
- Whether Plaintiff's attempt to raise new factual allegations and legal theories after judgment warranted relief under Rule 59(e).
- Whether the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's claims as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, res judicata, lack of personal jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, statute of limitations, or failure to state a claim.
Holdings
- A motion seeking reconsideration of an order after judgment has been entered is construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
- Plaintiff was not entitled to Rule 59(e) relief because she did not identify an intervening change in controlling law, previously unavailable new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice.
- Although pro se filings must be liberally construed, the court is not required to supply additional factual allegations or construct a legal theory for the litigant.
- Plaintiff's request for relief concerning paternity, child support, and related defamation allegations was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because she sought relief effectively challenging state-court proceedings and results.
- Plaintiff could not use her Rule 59(e) motion to add facts, claims, or legal theories that were not presented in the complaint or prior objection.
- The motion for reconsideration or to set aside the judgment was denied.
Key quotations
“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.” (II. Standard)
“A Rule 59(e) motion “is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.”” (II. Standard)
“Plaintiff’s motion is very difficult to follow and raises extraordinary allegations.” (III. Analysis)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that she was a victim of sex and human trafficking and asserted paternity, child-support, defamation, malicious-prosecution, religious-organization, tax-refund, discrimination, and other claims against the defendants. She had previously pursued paternity and child-support matters against Kwesi Akhan in several courts, and those filings were rejected; she also attached a District of Columbia order granting Akhan summary judgment on a defamation claim involving the allegation that he called her a mentally ill stalker. Her federal complaint was screened and dismissed because some claims were barred by jurisdictional doctrines or sovereign immunity, while others failed to state plausible claims or satisfy administrative-exhaustion requirements.
Procedural history
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed claims against private parties and federal agencies. The complaint was screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and the magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The district court adopted the recommendation, entered judgment dismissing the case, and Plaintiff appealed. After filing the appeal, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, which the court denied.