Maynard et al v. Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, The et al

Filing 223

MINUTE ORDER denying 221 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Recusal, by Judge John L. Kane on 5/2/11.(gmssl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Case No. 09-cv-2052-JLK-MEH (consolidated with 10-cv-1850-JLK & 11-cv-901JLK)
In re Alison Maynard and Gerald Lewis civil rights litigation.
__________________________________
ALISON MAYNARD, and
GERALD LEWIS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COLORADO SUPREME COURT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY REGULATION, et al.
Defendants.
[DOCUMENT APPLIES TO BOTH CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS]
________________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
________________________________________________________________________
Judge John L. Kane ORDERS
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Recusal (Doc. 221) raises no
valid grounds for revisiting the Court’s decision to remain on this case despite Plaintiffs’
allegations of personal bias. See EEOC v. Foothills Title Guar. Co., 1991 WL 61012 at *3 (D.
Colo. April 12, 1991), aff'd, 956 F.2d 277 (10th Cir. 1992); Major v. Benton, 647 F.2d 110, 112
(10th Cir. 1981)(explaining the law of the case doctrine generally requires a court to adhere to its
rulings in the interest of expeditious resolution of disputes and to prevent continued reargument
of issues already decided). Plaintiffs’ grounds for error are either premised on a
misapprehension of the plain language used in the Order, e.g., Mot. Reconsideration at 1
(completely misapprehending Court’s statement on p. 6 the Order Denying Motion), or repeat
subjective and speculative conclusions regarding the court’s perceived bias that have already
been addressed. Accordingly,
The Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Recusal (Doc. 221) is DENIED
_________________
Dated May 2, 2011.