Rueb v. Brown et al

Filing 52

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 44 Plaintiff's "Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment (Entered: 3-10-11), Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e)," by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/3/2011. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-03071-REB-MEH
JUSTIN RUEB, a/k/a Justin Joseph Rueb,
Plaintiff,
v.
BROWN,
BURBANK, DENNIS,
DOE (3 “John Doe” mailroom officers),
JONES, SUSAN, and
ZAVARAS, ARISTEDES,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on October 3, 2011.
Plaintiff’s “Motion to Alter and Amend Judgement (Entered: 3-10-11), Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. Rule 59(e)” [filed August 15, 2011; docket #44] is untimely and, therefore, is denied
without prejudice.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) states that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no
later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” The Tenth Circuit construes the Rule strictly:
“[a] district court may not grant a party additional time to file a proper Rule 59(e) motion.” Allender
v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1241 (10th Cir. 2006). The 2009 amendment to Rule 59(e)
does not affect this construction. See United States v. McKneely, 398 F. App’x 334, 335-36 (10th
Cir. 2010) (“[A] district court lacks jurisdiction to extend the time period contained in the rule”)
(describing the holding of Pratt v. Petroleum Prod. Mgmt. Inc. Emp. Sav. Plan & Trust, 920 F.2d
651, 656 (10th Cir. 1990)).
The judgment Plaintiff seeks to alter was entered on March 10, 2011 [docket #5]; however,
Plaintiff filed this motion over five months later. The Plaintiff provides, and the Court finds, no
legal authority supporting Plaintiff’s claim that an otherwise untimely motion may “relate back” to
a previous motion in order to satisfy the requirements of Rule 59(e). In light of the plain meaning
of Rule 59(e) and the Tenth Circuit’s strict construction of its provisions, the Court declines to
consider the merits of Plaintiff’s Motion...Pursuant to Rule 59(e). See McKneely, supra (finding that
a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely a pro se plaintiff’s “Motion to
Alter or Amend a Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e)” filed five months after judgment
was entered).