Nagim v. Napolitano et al

Filing 67

ORDER. Plaintiff's 50 , 51 motions for clarification and extensions of time and 53 Motion to Show Cause, which the Court construes as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), are denied. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 8/24/11.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00329-PAB-KLM
RONALD J. NAGIM,
Plaintiff,
v.
JANET NAPOLITANO,
in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and
ERIC HOLDER, JR.,
in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motions for clarification and
extensions of time [Docket Nos. 50, 51] and “Motion to Show Cause” [Docket No. 53],
which the Court construes as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court liberally
construes his pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972); Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
On March 8, 2011, the Court accepted the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge (the “Recommendation”) [Docket No. 31] and granted defendants’
motion to dismiss [Docket No. 24]. See Docket No. 49. In his motions for clarification,
plaintiff requests additional explanation regarding the basis for the Court’s dismissal.
The Court finds that its order [Docket No. 49] and the Recommendation it accepted
[Docket No. 31] provide sufficient explanation of the grounds for dismissal. As for

plaintiff’s request for twenty one days to “reply to the [a]ctual dismissal” after resolution
of his motions for clarification, the Court is not empowered to extend the period for filing
a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2).
Moreover, and in any event, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court alter
or amend its judgment within the period set by Rule 59(e). A party is justified in
bringing such a motion when there has been “(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 the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d
1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Brumark Corp. v. Samson Resources Corp., 57 F.3d
941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995)). Plaintiff has not identified any change in controlling law or
any basis to conclude there has been clear error or manifest injustice. Plaintiff does
supply new evidence, in the form of a letter from an assistant district attorney in
Louisiana, which he believes provides a basis to alter or amend the judgment. See
Docket No. 53 at 4. The Court, however, finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated how
this letter calls any aspect of the Court’s resolution of this matter into doubt.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for clarification and extensions of time [Docket
Nos. 50, 51] and “Motion to Show Cause” [Docket No. 53], which the Court construes
as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e), are DENIED.

2

DATED August 24, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

3