Jason Steven Kokinda v. Cpl. T.H. Foster, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied Jason Steven Kokinda’s motion to reconsider the dismissal of his civil action. The court held that Kokinda had received adequate notice to object to a prior proposed findings and recommendation and had not shown an intervening change in law, newly discovered evidence, or clear error. The court also rejected his challenges concerning malicious prosecution, false arrest, alleged conspiracies, Vermont sex-offender registry notes, and personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.

Holdings

1. An interlocutory order may be reconsidered under Rule 54(b) only upon an intervening change in controlling law, newly discovered evidence previously unavailable, or a need to correct clear or manifest error of law or fact or prevent manifest injustice.
2. A motion for reconsideration may not be used merely to rehash arguments previously raised and rejected or to present arguments that could have been raised earlier.
3. Plaintiff received sufficient notice to timely object to the proposed findings and recommendations because the court mailed the PF&R to the last address plaintiff had provided to the clerk.
4. A plaintiff challenging probable cause based on allegedly false or misleading warrant affidavits must present evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute that officers intentionally or recklessly included false statements or omitted material facts with an intent to mislead; conclusory allegations are insufficient.
5. Plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction under either a conspiracy theory or the effects test because he did not identify specific defendants, acts, or facts satisfying the applicable elements.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should reconsider its prior interlocutory rulings because plaintiff allegedly lacked adequate notice of a proposed findings and recommendations.
2. Whether plaintiff demonstrated grounds under Rule 54(b) or Rule 60(b)(3) to revisit the prior disposition of his malicious-prosecution and false-arrest claims.
3. Whether plaintiff presented evidence creating a genuine dispute regarding allegedly false or misleading warrant affidavits and probable cause.
4. Whether Vermont sex-offender-registry notes and an alleged retaliatory conspiracy warranted reconsideration or established personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.

Disposition

other