USA v. Luker

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v. 	Case No. 24-CR-10027-EFM
Case No. 25-CV-01082-EFM
TIMOTHY D. LUKER,
Defendant-Petitioner.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant-Petitioner Timothy D. Luker’s pro se Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 37) of the Court’s Order denying his Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 on the merits (Doc. 36). This is Defendant’s second request for the Court to reconsider his
Motion to Vacate. Previously, the Court granted Defendant’s first motion for reconsideration of
its denial of Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, which the Court erroneously denied as waived by
Defendant’s plea agreement. The Court then considered Defendant’s substantive arguments,
rejected them, and denied his Motion to Vacate on the merits.1 Defendant’s second Motion for
Reconsideration argues that the Court clearly erred in denying his Motion to Vacate on the merits
and, in the alternative, requests a certificate of appealability (“COA”). For the reasons stated
below, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion and his request for a COA.
1 See United States v. Luker, 2025 WL 3166825 (D. Kan. Nov. 13, 2025); Doc. 36.
Case 6:24-cr-10027-EFM Document 40 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 4

-2-
I. 	Legal Standards
Because Defendant proceeds pro se, the Court holds his pleadings to “less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”2 A pro se litigant is entitled to a liberal
construction of his pleadings.3 But it is not the proper role of a district court to “assume the role of
advocate for the pro se litigant.”4
The Court has discretion whether to grant a motion to reconsider.5 The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure do not formally recognize a “motion to reconsider.”6 Instead, a post-judgment
motion to reconsider “may arise under either Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend the judgment)
or Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment for mistake or other reason),” although the rules are not
interchangeable.7 Here, Defendant does not specify which rule he moves for reconsideration under,
but he expresses that the Court “needs to correct clear error.”8 As such, the Court construes his
motion as brought under Rule 59(e).9
2 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
3 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro
se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
attorneys.”).
4 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
5 See Hancock v. City of Okla. City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir. 1988).
6 See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991).
7 Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 854 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
8 Doc. 37 at 1.
9 Whether a motion for reconsideration should be considered a motion under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) is not
only a question of timing, but also “depends on the reasons expressed by the movant.” Commonwealth Prop. Advocs.,
LLC v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 680 F.3d 1194, 1200 (10th Cir. 2011) (“A Rule 59(e) motion is the
appropriate vehicle to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence.” (quotation omitted)).
Case 6:24-cr-10027-EFM Document 40 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 4

-3-
A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “gives the court an opportunity to correct
manifest errors of law or fact and to review newly discovered evidence.”10 The court should alter
or amend its judgment where the court has misapprehended the facts, the parties’ positions, or the
controlling law. 11 “A motion to reconsider is not a second chance for the losing party to make its
strongest case or to dress up arguments that previously failed.”12 Such motions are not appropriate
if the movant only wants the Court to revisit issues already addressed or to hear new arguments or
supporting facts that could have been presented originally.13
II. 	Analysis
Defendant presents no valid argument warranting the Court’s reconsideration. Instead,
Defendant repeats the same arguments raised in his Motion to Vacate which the Court considered
and rejected. Defendant’s assertions that the Court clearly erred in denying him section 2255 relief
merely rehash his previous arguments and are insufficient to warrant relief from judgment under
Rule 59(e).14 Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration.
As for Defendant’s request for a COA, the Court directs Defendant to the Court’s Order
denying him section 2255 relief, in which the Court determined he was not entitled to a COA. A
court may only grant a COA “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
10 Voelkel v. Gen. Motors Corp., 846 F. Supp. 1482, 1483 (D. Kan. 1994) (citing Comm. for the First Amend.
v. Campbell, 962 F.2d 1517, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992)).
11 Barber ex rel. Barber v. Colo. Dep’t of Revenue, 562 F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (citation omitted).
12 Voelkel, 846 F. Supp. at 1483.
13 See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243.
14 Defendant’s arguments would also be insufficient to warrant relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) if the
Court were to construe his Motion for Reconsideration as one brought under Rule 60(b). See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Case 6:24-cr-10027-EFM Document 40 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 4

-4-
constitutional right.”15 Defendant did not make such a showing in his Motion to Vacate, and he
has not made such a showing here. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s request for a COA.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 37)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 6th day of March, 2026.
ERIC F. MELGREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Case 6:24-cr-10027-EFM Document 40 Filed 03/06/26 Page 4 of 4