Ramos v. Mesa County Parole Department et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 18 Plaintiff's Motion to Part Amend in Case by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 8/24/09.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-00824-WYD-KLM RICHARD RAMOS, Plaintiff, v. JIM KELLER, TASHA DOBBS, DUANE ROBINSON, and ROBERT ARMENTA, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Part Amend in Case [Docket No. 18; Filed July 1, 2009] (the "Motion"). Plaintiff appears to be requesting reconsideration of District Court Judge Weinshienk's Order dismissing his claim that he has been denied access to the Courts. [Docket No. 11]. This Court does not have jurisdiction to review an order of a District Court Judge. Moreover, a motion for reconsideration "is an extreme remedy to be granted in rare circumstances." Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 944 (10th Cir. 1995). It is well established in the Tenth Circuit that grounds for a motion to reconsider include: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Brumark, 57 F.3d at 948). Therefore, a motion to reconsider is "appropriate [only] where the court has misapprehended the facts,

a party's position, or the controlling law. It is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing." Id. Plaintiff has not submitted any new facts or law to support the Motion. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.

Dated: August 24, 2009

___/s/ Kristen L. Mix____________ Kristen L. Mix United States Magistrate Judge