Lyman et al v. Geary County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CHRISTOPHER D. LYMAN et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	Case No. 25-2023-EFM-RES
COREY ODELL et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Terra Frazier, D.O.’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration
(Doc. 88). Dr. Frazier seeks reconsideration of the Court’s previous Order granting in part and
denying in part her motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and seeks dismissal of Plaintiff
E.L. and M.L.’s Counts I–IV as alleged against her. Plaintiffs oppose the Motion. For the reasons
explained below, the Court denies Dr. Frazier’s Motion.
I. 	Factual and Procedural Background
For brevity’s sake, the Court incorporates its factual discussion of this case from its
previous Order.1 Relevant here, in 2013, Dr. Frazier evaluated J.S.—the infant nephew of then-
married Plaintiffs Christopher D. Lyman and Tammarisk Thompson—after J.S. was life flighted
to Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Kansas. Later, J.S. was pronounced dead. Dr. Frazier
concluded J.S. had been abused and relayed her conclusions to Defendant Detective Corey Odell
of the Junction City Police Department, ultimately leading to Mr. Lyman’s prosecution and
conviction. As the charges were pending, Mr. Lyman and Ms. Thompson’s children—E.L. and
1 Doc. 86 at 1–4 (citation omitted).
Case 2:25-cv-02023-EFM-RES Document 106 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 5

-2-
M.L.—were placed in foster care and were not returned to Ms. Thompson until Mr. Lyman’s
sentencing in 2015. Mr. Lyman was later released in 2023 after a different doctor concluded that
J.S. died from a fungal infection, not abuse. Mr. Lyman and Ms. Thompson—individually and for
the benefit of E.L. and M.L.—bring this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against several Defendants,
including Dr. Frazier.
Dr. Frazier filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint on December 8, 2025.
On August 4, 2026, the Court issued an Order that granted in part and denied in part Dr. Frazier’s
motion. There, the Court made the following observation:
Finally, Detective Odell is the only Defendant that seems to recognize that E.L. and
M.L. bring all six claims in the Amended Complaint. In its prior order, the Court
previously addressed E.L. and M.L.’s claims of fabrication of evidence, conspiracy
to fabricate false evidence, and malicious prosecution claims. The Court found that
these claims are limited to a criminal-type case, and because E.L. and M.L. were
not criminally prosecuted, they could not bring these claims. The same reasoning
applies to the Brady violation claim in Count III. Nothing presented in the Amended
Complaint 	or 	Plaintiffs’ 	briefing 	changes 	the 	Court’s 	previous 	analysis.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses Counts I–IV as alleged against Detective Odell.
However, as discussed above, E.L. and M.L. have alleged facts sufficient to
plausibly state Counts V–VI.2
Now, Dr. Frazier seeks reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order.
II. 	Legal Standard
The Court has discretion whether to grant a motion to reconsider.3 The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure do not formally recognize a “motion to reconsider.”4 D. Kan. Rule 7.3 governs
2 Id. at 12 (emphasis added).
3 See Hancock v. City of Okla. City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir. 1988).
4 See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991).
Case 2:25-cv-02023-EFM-RES Document 106 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 5

-3-
motions to reconsider non-dispositive orders, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60 govern motions to
reconsider dispositive orders.5 The standard is nearly identical under both rules.
A party may seek reconsideration on the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.6 A motion to reconsider is available where the court has “misapprehended a
party’s position, the facts or applicable law, or where the party produces new evidence that it could
not have obtained earlier through the exercise of due diligence.”7 Such a motion, however, is “not
a second opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case, to rehash arguments or to dress
up arguments that previously failed.”8
III. 	Analysis
Dr. Frazier argues the Court committed clear error by interpreting her motion to dismiss as
not seeking dismissal of E.L. and M.L.’s claims outside of Count V. She asserts that she clearly
requested dismissal of E.L. and M.L.’s claims in Counts I–IV, too. The Court’s interpretation,
however, was based on the text of Dr. Frazier’s own motion.
The opening paragraph to Dr. Frazier’s motion to dismiss provided:
COMES NOW Defendant Terra Frazier, D.O., by and through counsel of record,
and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), moves the Court for an order of dismissal
with 	prejudice 	of 	Tammarisk 	Thompson’s 	claims 	(Counts 	1-6); 	Plaintiffs’
Conspiracy claims arising from Brady violations (Count 5); Plaintiffs’ E.L. and
M.L.’s Conspiracy claims (Count 5); and Plaintiffs’ Interference with Family
5 D. Kan. R. 7.3; Coffeyville Res. Refin. & Mktg., LLC v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1261,
1264 (D. Kan. 2010).
6 D. Kan. R. 7.3; Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Brumark Corp.
v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995)).
7 Bedivere Ins. Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 491 F. Supp. 3d 929, 936 (D. Kan. 2020)
(citations omitted).
8 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-02023-EFM-RES Document 106 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 5

-4-
Relationships claims (Count 6). Filed herewith is a Memorandum in Support of
Motion to Dismiss, which is incorporated by reference.9
As such, Dr. Frazier only requested dismissal of E.L. and M.L.’s Count V in her motion. She only
requested dismissal of Counts I–IV as brought by Ms. Thompson, not as brought on E.L. and
M.L.’s behalf. Similarly, Dr. Frazier made an identical request in the opening paragraph of her
accompanying supporting memorandum.10
Attempting to avoid the text in her opening paragraphs, Dr. Frazier points to a footnote in
her supporting memorandum where she recognized that Plaintiffs appeared to be repleading
Counts I–VI on behalf of E.L. and M.L. and argued that the claims should be dismissed “for the
reasons further explained below.”11 But Dr. Frazier’s promised explanation regarding E.L. and
M.L.’s claims never arrived above-line.12 And “[a]rguments raised in a perfunctory manner, such
as in a footnote, are waived.” 13
A motion for reconsideration is not a means to redraft one’s intended request for relief to
be clear once it is revealed to be otherwise. Here, the error is Dr. Frazier’s, not the Court’s.
Accordingly, Dr. Frazier’s Motion is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Dr. Frazier’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration
(Doc. 88) is DENIED.
9 Doc. 71.
10 Doc. 72.
11 See id. at 2 n.1.
12 All that arrived above-line was Dr. Frazier’s singular request in conclusion that “all of Plaintiffs E.L. and
M.L.’s claim must be dismissed.” See id. at 11 (emphasis added). Thus, in arguing that she requested E.L. and M.L.’s
“claims” be dismissed, Dr. Frazier misquotes herself.
13 Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass’n v. Mulready, 78 F.4th 1183, 1204 (10th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v.
Hardman, 297 F.3d 1116, 1141 (10th Cir. 2002) (en banc)).
Case 2:25-cv-02023-EFM-RES Document 106 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 5

-5-
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 8th day of October 2026.
ERIC F. MELGREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02023-EFM-RES Document 106 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 5