Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 488

ORDER Denying 487 plaintiff's motion to the court in opposition, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/19/2015.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00968-REB-KLM
KATHLEEN CHYTKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION
Blackburn, J.
The matter is before me on the plaintiff’s untitled, pro se motion [#487]1 filed
October 1, 2015.2 After reviewing the motion, the record, and the apposite law, I
conclude that the motion should be denied.
In a 13 page rant Ms. Chytka continues her morbid preoccupation with her
ongoing idee fixe that she has been wronged by the court. Whether viewed as a motion
to reconsider or a motion seeking relief from a judgment or order, Ms. Chytka fails to
factually or legally circumstantiate a basis for relief.
On September 23, 2015, I entered an Order Concerning Motion for Attorney

1

“[#463]” 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

Ms. Chytka is proceeding pro se. Thus, I continue to construe her pleadings and other filings
more liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings or papers drafted by
lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th
Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).

Fees [#485] in which, inter alia, I awarded the defendant attorney fees and costs. The
instant motion appears to be directed largely to that order. Viewed first as a possible
motion to reconsider, I rehearse the familiar legal standard that 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
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). Ms. Chytka falls well short of establishing any of these bases for
reconsideration
In the alternative, the motion could be construed as a motion for relief from an
order under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) relief requires a showing of exceptional
circumstances warranting relief from a judgment or order. Van Skiver v. United
States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). A litigant shows exceptional
circumstances by satisfying one or more of the grounds for relief enumerated in Rule
60(b). Id. at 1243-44. Ms. Chytka does not circumstantiate any of the grounds for relief
enumerated in Rule 60(b).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to the court
in opposition, is denied.

2

Dated November 19, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

3