Trujillo v. Plough et al

Filing 28

ORDER. The respondents Motion for Reconsideration 19 field 01/14/2010, is DENIED. The Petitioners Amended Motion for Reconsideration 22 filed 01/27/2010, is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 09/10/2010.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Action No. 09-cv-01712-REB JOHN GERALD TRUJILLO, Applicant, v. PAM PLOUGHE, Warden, CTCF, and, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Defendants. ORDER ON MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER Blackburn, J. This matter is before me on the following: (1) the respondents' Motion for Reconsideration [#19] field January 14, 2010; and (2) the Petitioner's Amended Motion for Reconsideration [#22] filed January 27, 2010. I deny both motions. Both the respondents and the applicant ask me to reconsider the court's Order To Draw in Part and To Dismiss in Part [#18] filed January 13, 2010. Grounds warranting 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. Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate 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. Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). In this case, I conclude that none of these grounds has been circumstantiated in either of the motions.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That the respondents' Motion for Reconsideration [#19] field January 14, 2010, is DENIED; and 2. That the Petitioner's Amended Motion for Reconsideration [#22] filed January 27, 2010, is DENIED. Dated September 10, 2010, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

2