Order — United States v. Prather (Dkt. 113, S.D. Ohio)

Summary

An order of Judge Matthew W. McFarland in United States v. Kelli Prather, Case No. 1:21-cr-38, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, filed July 21, 2025 as Doc 113. It grants the defendant's Pro Se Motion to Extend the Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration for Compassionate Release (Doc. 107) and denies her Pro Se Motion for Reconsideration for Compassionate Release (Doc. 108). The government had filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 109), and the defendant a Reply in Support (Doc. 112). The order applies the standard courts borrow from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which it describes as necessarily high, and concludes that the motion does not meet it.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case: 1:21-cr-00038-MWM Doc #: 113 Filed: 07/21/25 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 1848




                      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                       FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
                         WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                            Case No. 1:21-cr-38

                       Plaintiff,                     Judge Matthew W. McFarland

                V.


 KELLI PRATHER,

                       Defendant.


                                           ORDER


       This matter is before the Court on Defendant Kelli Prather' s Pro Se Motion to

Extend the Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration for Compassionate Release (Doc.

107) and Pro Se Motion for Reconsideration for Compassionate Release (Doc. 108). The

Government filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 109), to which Defendant filed a Reply

in Support (Doc. 112). Thus, this matter is fully briefed and ripe for review. For the

following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Extend the Time to File a

Motion for Reconsideration for Compassionate Release (Doc. 107) and DENIES

Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration for Compassionate Release (Doc. 108).

       I.     Motion for Extension

       First, the Court considers Defendant's Motion to Extend the Time to File a Motion

for Reconsideration for Compassionate Release (Doc. 107). "A motion for reconsideration

in a criminal case must be filed within the 14-day period for filing an appeal." United

States v. Gordon, No. 23-3188, 2024 WL 1005772, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 4, 2024); see also United

 Case: 1:21-cr-00038-MWM Doc #: 113 Filed: 07/21/25 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 1849




States v. Correa-Gomez, 328 F.3d 297, 299 (6th Cir. 2003). Upon a finding of excusable

neglect or good cause, however, a district court may extend this time for up to an

additional 30 days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Here, the Court denied Defendant's Motion

for Compassionate Release on January 3, 2025. (Order, Doc. 106.) Defendant's Motion for

Extension of Time was postmarked February 13, 2025. (Motion to Extend, Doc. 107, Pg.

ID 1767.) Defendant asks the Court to extend the time to file her Motion for

Reconsideration because she did not receive the order denying her motion for

compassionate release within the fourteen-day timeframe due to mail issues. (Id.) The

Government has not voiced opposition to reviewing the merits of Defendant's Motion for

Reconsideration. (See Response, Doc. 109.) Thus, for good cause and excusable neglect

shown, the Court will consider Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. See United States

v. Dotz, 455 F.3d 644,647 (6th Cir. 2006).

       II.    Motion for Reconsideration

       Though the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not expressly provide for

reconsideration of an order, courts considering motions for reconsideration in the

criminal context have looked to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. See United States v.

Mathews, No. 2:19-CR-41, 2024 WL 495539, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 8, 2024) (collecting cases);

United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 78 (1964). "The standard for a motion to reconsider

under Rule 59(e) is 'necessarily high.'" United States v. Stargell, No. 3:17-CR-28, 2022 WL

1540238, at *2 (S.D. Ohio May 16, 2022) (quotation omitted). "A court may only grant a

Rule 59(e) motion if the moving party shows (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered



                                             2

 Case: 1:21-cr-00038-MWM Doc #: 113 Filed: 07/21/25 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 1850




 evidence; (3) an intervening change in the controlling law; or (4) a manifest injustice." Id.

 (citing GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804,834 (6th Cir. 1999)).

        Defendant seeks reconsideration of her Motion for Compassionate Release based

largely on the same reasoning previously offered and rejected by the Court. (Compare

Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. 108, with Motion for Compassionate Release, Doc. 99;

Order Denying Compassionate Release, Doc. 106.) Notably, "a motion to reconsider

should not be used to re-litigate issues previously considered." Am. Marietta Corp. v.

Essroc Cement Corp., 59 F. App'x 668, 671 (6th Cir. 2003); see also Hanna v. Marriott Hotel

Servs., Inc., No. 3:18-CV-325, 2019 WL 7482144, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 18, 2019)

(explaining that a motion for reconsideration provides a party with neither an

opportunity for a "second bite at the apple" nor a "request that a court rethink a decision

already made").

       While Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration primarily recites medical

conditions and information previously presented in her Motion for Compassionate

Release, it appears that Defendant makes a few new arguments. Viewed as either a

motion for reconsideration or a second motion for compassionate release, the Court finds

each contention unpersuasive. Defendant asserts that she has suffered from "long Covid"

and other infections (Motion, Doc. 108, Pg. ID 1768), but she neither sufficiently

demonstrates how this qualifies as an extraordinary condition nor provides adequate

accompanying documentation. Additionally, Defendant contends that Atwood Satellite

Camp is experiencing an outbreak of infectious diseases, as well as problems with black

mold, asbestos, and lead. (Id. at Pg. ID 1769, 1772.) But, Defendant is not presently located

                                              3

 Case: 1:21-cr-00038-MWM Doc #: 113 Filed: 07/21/25 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 1851




at this facility. (Reply, Doc. 112, Pg. ID 1845; https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last

visited 7/14/2025)). To the extent Defendant reasserts that her lymphedema necessitates

compassionate release, she has not provided additional documentation or reasoning that

would alter the Court's pervious analysis. The Government, for its part, represents that

it has again contacted the federal medical center, which has confirmed that Defendant's

medical conditions are manageable and treatable. (Response, Doc. 109, Pg. ID 1824.)

       Finally, even assuming that Defendant can show extraordinary circumstances

relating to her medical conditions, the Court still finds that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

counsel against compassionate release for the reasons previously established. (See Order

Denying Compassionate Release, Doc. 106, Pg. ID 1764-65.) After examining Defendant's

arguments (Motion, Doc. 108, Pg. ID 1771), the Court concludes that the§ 3553(a) factors

serve as an independent bar to the requested relief. See United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516,

519 (6th Cir. 2021). Thus, the Court denies Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.

                                      CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Extend the

Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration for Compassionate Release (Doc. 107) and

DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration for Compassionate Release (Doc. 108).

       IT IS SO ORDERED.



                                                   UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
                                                   SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF HIO

                                             By:
                                                  ~""1:l,!~
                                                   JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

                                              4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ohsd.254244.113.0.pdf

Size

1,573,045 bytes

SHA-256

cbe5f5209dcf82a07a0625f99d94dbc71666f267c7f58ccb5ae1e4d461a53370

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ohsd.254244.113.0.pdf