The opinion
Gnited States District Court
for the s2Qorthern District of Oklahoma
Case No. 23-cv-354-JDR-JFJ
MEGAN SLINKARD; JON SLINKARD,
Plaintiffs,
versus
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1 OF TULSA CounTY, also
known as TULSA PUBLIC SCHOOLS; ALPHA BENSON, Interim
Principal, in his official and personal capacity, DEBORAH GIST,
Superintendent, in her official and personal capactty,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and
granted Defendants Alpha Benson and Deborah Gist’s motion to dismiss.
Dkt. 44. Plaintiffs Megan and Jon Slinkard seek reconsideration of that opin-
ion and order regarding (1) the facial constitutionality of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, §
1376 and Tulsa Public School Board Policy 1301, and (2) the dismissal of
claims against Alpha Benson based on qualified immunity. Dkt. 52. The
Slinkards’ arguments do not persuade the Court to reconsider its decisions,
and the Court denies their motion.
The Slinkards’ motion to reconsider the Court’s opinion and order
does not meet the requirements of Rule 59(e). Under Rule 59(e), a party may
ask for reconsideration if the court’s judgment “misapprehended the facts, a
party’s position, or the controlling law.” Barber ex. rel. Barber v. Colo. Dep’t of
Revenue, 562 F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). “Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an
No. 23-cv-354
intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously una-
vailable, 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) (citation
omitted). Reconsideration is “ ‘not available to allow a party merely to reargue
an issue previously addressed by the court when the reargument merely ad-
vances new arguments or supporting facts which were available for presenta-
tion at the time of the original argument.’” FDIC v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 152
F.3d 1266, 1272 (10th Cir.1998) (quoting Cashner ». Freedom Stores, Inc., 98
F.3d 572, 577 (10th Cir.1996)). ““A Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is designed
to permit relief in extraordinary circumstances and not to offer a second bite
at the proverbial apple.” Syntroleum Corp. v. Fletcher Int'l Ltd., No. 08-cv-
384-JHP-FHM, 2009 WL 761322, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 19, 2009) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). And the Slinkards’ motion is just that:
an attempt to reargue the matters already addressed in the Court’s opinion
and order.
The Court finds that the Slinkards have not met the heavy burden re-
quired by Rule 59(e). Nearly all of the motion is devoted to re-arguing matters
previously raised and rejected by the Court’s opinion and order. The Court
has no obligation to consider those arguments when ruling on a Rule 59(e)
motion, see Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1009, and the Court will not do
so here. Because the Slinkards failed to meet the requirements of Rule 59, the
Court denies the motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Slinkards’ motion to
reconsider [Dkt. 52] is denied.
DATED this 6th day of June 2025.
1 val Rony —
ant. ce
United States District Judge