Allen v. Reynolds et al
Filing
121
ORDER denying 115 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration by Judge William J. Martinez on 6/13/2011.(erv, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 09-cv-02605-WJM-MJW
SHAWN D. ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
R. REYNOLDS,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s June 9, 2011 Motion for
Reconsideration. (ECF No. 115.) Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order
granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the subsequent entry of
judgment in favor of Defendant. (ECF Nos. 113 & 114.)
A litigant subject to an adverse judgment, and who seeks reconsideration by the
district court of that adverse judgment, may “file either a motion to alter or amend the
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243
(10th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff does not specify in the instant Motion whether he is seeking
relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60.
A motion to alter or amend the judgment must be filed within twenty-eight days
after the judgment is entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because the instant Motion
was filed within the twenty-eight day deadline for a Rule 59(e) motion, the Court will
consider it as such. See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243 (stating that motion to
reconsider filed within temporal limit for a Rule 59(e) motion should be construed as a
Rule 59(e) motion). The three major grounds that justify reconsideration under Rule
59(e) are: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). The Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure do not offer an opportunity for a party to reargue its case after
the court has rendered a decision. Id. (holding that a party moving to reconsider a prior
ruling should not “revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could
have been raised in prior briefing.”); see also All West Pet Supply Co. v. Hill’s Pet
Products Div., 847 F. Supp. 858, 860 (D. Kan. 1994) (“A motion to reconsider or to alter
or amend may not be used as a vehicle for the losing party to rehash arguments
previously considered and rejected by the district court.”).
Here, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred by making factual findings that relied
on Defendant’s “self-serving affidavit.” Plaintiff also argues that he has demonstrated
material factual disputes that preclude summary judgment. (ECF No. 115.) The
arguments made by Plaintiff in the instant Motion to Reconsider mirror those set forth in
his Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation that Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment be granted. (Compare ECF No. 108 to 115.) In adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and granting summary judgment, the Court
already considered those arguments and found them unpersuasive. (See Order
Adopting and Affirming Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No.
2
113) pp. 4-6.)
Because Plaintiff has not shown that there was an intervening change in the law,
newly discovered evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Dated this 13th day of June, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?