Andrews et al v. Layman et al

Filing 110

MINUTE ORDER denying 105 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 03/10/15.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 09-cv-00249-PAB-KMT
ANDREA P. ANDREWS and
BYRON K. ANDREWS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer
This matter is before the Court on the August 12, 2014 filing [Docket No. 105] of
plaintiffs Andrea and Byron Andrews. The filing appears to request that the Court
reconsider its August 7, 2014 minute order [Docket No. 104] denying plaintiffs’ request
to reopen this case. See Docket No. 105 at 1-2.
Plaintiffs deny receiving the Court’s December 23, 2009 order [Docket No. 90]
accepting the magistrate judge’s Recommendation and dismissing plaintiff’s claims and
deny receiving the January 8, 2010 final judgment [Docket No. 91]. Docket No. 105 at
1. Plaintiffs argue that, if they had received such documents, they would have promptly
filed a motion to reconsider and would not have continued filing motions that do not
address the order dismissing the case. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiffs argue that they were never
told of a final order and argue that “justice will be offended” if their request to reopen the
case is denied. Docket No. 105 at 8-9.
Plaintiffs’ arguments are an insufficient basis for the Court to reconsider its
decision not to reopen the case. See Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d
1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (setting forth grounds on which a Court may reconsider a
prior decision). Although plaintiffs assert that they did not receive the order and final
judgment dismissing their claims and assert that they were not previously informed that
a “final order” issued, such assertions, even if true, are irrelevant. Plaintiffs were
informed that this case was closed on multiple occasions and were therefore on notice
that this case had been resolved and was no longer pending. See Docket No. 104.
Moreover, plaintiffs do not explain why it would offend justice if this case is not
reopened and no such reason is apparent to the Court. See Cashner v. Freedom
Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 580 (10th Cir. 1996) (holding that amending a judgment is
appropriate when circumstances are so “unusual or compelling” that extraordinary relief

is warranted or when it “offends justice” to deny such relief).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Court’s prior orders, see
Docket Nos. 102, 104, to the extent plaintiffs request that the Court reconsider its
decision not to reopen the case or request that the Court take some action, such
requests are denied.
It is so ORDERED.
DATED March 10, 2015.