Harper v. Federal Prison Industries, Inc. et al

Filing 199

ORDER denying 198 Plaintiff's paper captioned "WrongfulDismissal" read as a motion for relief from judgment. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 10/2/12.(mjgsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 07-cv-00750-REB-KMT
DONALD ALTON HARPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
P. URBANO, P.A., and
NORMAN S. ROSENTHAL, M.D.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the plaintiff’s paper captioned “Wrongful Dismissal”
[#198]1 September 27, 2012. In the body of his filing, the plaintiff asks the court to reopen this civil suit, arguing that the case was dismissed in error. I deny the motion.2
On September 10, 2010, the court entered an order [#183] approving and
adopting the recommendations of the magistrate judge, granting the defendants’ motion
to dismiss, dismissing this case, and directing the entry of judgment. The present
motion was filed more than 28 days after the entry of the Final Judgment [#184], which
was entered on September 14, 2012. Therefore, I construe the motion as a motion for

1

“[#198]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
2

I exercise my discretion under D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C., and rule on this motion without benefit
of a response.

relief from judgment under FED. R. CIV. P. 60.3
To obtain relief under Rule 60(b), a party must show exceptional circumstances
warranting relief from judgment. Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243
(10th Cir. 1991). A litigant shows exceptional circumstances by satisfying one or more of
the grounds for relief enumerated in Rule 60(b). Id. at 1243-44. In his motion, the
plaintiff does not satisfy any of the grounds for relief enumerated in Rule 60(b).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s paper captioned “Wrongful
Dismissal” [#198] September 27, 2012, read as a motion for relief from judgment under
FED. R. CIV. P. 60, is DENIED.
Dated October 2, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3

Because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings more liberally and
held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070,
1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)).

2