Pinson v. Davis

Filing 32

ORDER denying 30 Motion for Reconsideration by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 02/01/12.(jjh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00608-WYD
JEREMY PINSON,
Applicant,
v.
BLAKE DAVIS,
Respondent.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Applicant Jeremy Pinson, acting pro se, filed a Motion for Reconsideration on
January 30, 2012 [ECF No. 30], seeking reinstatement of this case. The Court must
construe the Motion liberally because Mr. Pinson is not represented by an attorney.
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1110 (10th Cir. 1991). For the reasons discussed below, the Motion will be denied.
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). A motion to alter or amend the judgment must be filed within twentyeight days after the judgment is entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Court will
consider Mr. Pinson’s Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) because the
motion was filed within twenty-eight days after the Court dismissed this action on the

merits. See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243 (previous ten-day limit applied to Rule 59(e)
filings).
A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted “to correct manifest errors of law or to
present newly discovered evidence.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th
Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Relief under Rule 59(e) also is
appropriate when “the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the
controlling law.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.
2000). However, a Rule 59(e) motion is not a new opportunity to revisit issues already
addressed or to advance arguments that could have been raised previously. See id.
Upon consideration of the Motion for Reconsideration, the Order of Dismissal,
and the entire file, the Court concludes that Mr. Pinson fails to demonstrate some
reason why the Court should alter or amend the January 13, 2012 Order of Dismissal
and Judgment in this action. Nothing Mr. Pinson asserts gives cause for reinstating this
case. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e), filed January 30, 2012 [ECF No. 30] is DENIED.
Dated: February 1, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
WILEY Y. DANIEL,
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2