Wallin v. Denver Department of Human Services et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 19 Motion to Reconsider. FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 8/7/12.(lygsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01516-ZLW

OLOYEA D. WALLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DENVER JUVENILE DISTRICT COURT,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

On August 1, 2012, Plaintiff, Oloyea D. Wallin, submitted a Motion for
Postjudgment Relief Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), ECF No. 19. The Court must
construe the Motion liberally because Mr. Wallin is proceeding pro se. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
1991). For the following reasons, the Court will deny the Motion.
A litigant subject to an adverse judgment, and who seeks reconsideration by the
district court of that adverse judgment, may “file either a motion to alter or amend the
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243
(10th Cir. 1991). A motion to reconsider filed more than twenty-eight days after the final
judgment in an action should be considered pursuant to Rule 60(b). See Id. (stating
that a motion to reconsider should be construed as filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) when it
is filed within the limit set forth under Rule 59(e)). Mr. Wallin’s Motion was filed more
than twenty-eight days after the Court’s Order of Dismissal and Judgment were entered

on August 28, 2006. The Motion properly is filed as a Motion to Reconsider under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Relief under Rule 60(b) is appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances. See
Massengale v. Oklahoma Bd. of Examiners in Optometry, 30 F.3d 1325, 1330 (10th Cir.
1994). Upon consideration of the Motion to Reconsider and the entire file, the Court
finds that Mr. Wallin fails to demonstrate some reason why the dismissal should be
reconsidered and vacated. Therefore, the Court finds Mr. Wallin fails to assert
extraordinary circumstances that justify granting the relief he seeks under Rule 60(b).
The Court also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this order is not taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied
for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If Mr.
Wallin files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $455 appellate filing fee or file a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance
with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider, ECF No. 19, filed on August 1, 2012,
is denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

7th

day of

August

, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

2