Dowling v. Sturgeon Electric

Filing 215

ORDER. The plaintiffs Motion To Reconsider Order Denying Plaintiffs Amended Objection 211 filed 12/5/2011, is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 12/8/2011.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 10-cv-01118-REB-KMT
THERESA L. DOWLING,
Plaintiff,
v.
STURGEON ELECTRIC,
WILLIAM LONG, and
WILLIAM FREDRICKS,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the plaintiff’s Motion To Reconsider Order Denying
Plaintiff’s Amended Objection [#211]1 filed December 5, 2011. The plaintiff seeks
reconsideration of my Order Denying Relief Sought in Plaintiff’s Amended
Objection [#204] filed November 22, 2011. I deny the motion.2
The bases for granting reconsideration are extremely limited:
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
1

“[#211]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
2

Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I continue to construe her pleadings and other filings
more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v.
Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)
(citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). However, I
have not acted as an advocate for the plaintiff.

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 her motion to reconsider [#211], the plaintiff offers nothing claiming or
suggesting that any of these factors are implicated in my Order Denying Relief Sought
in Plaintiff’s Amended Objection [#204] filed November 22, 2011.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion To Reconsider Order
Denying Plaintiff’s Amended Objection [#211] filed December 5, 2011, is DENIED.
Dated December 8, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2