Ramos v. USA

Filing 24

ORDER denying 18 Motion to Reconsider, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 11/9/11.(lsw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01073-BNB
LEONARDO RAMOS-HERNANDEZ, also known as
LEONARD RAMOS, and
ALL PERSONS SIMILARY [sic] SITUATED, AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF ALL MALE
ACTIVE DUTY SERVICEMEN IN THE U.S. NAVY
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ANDREW TOMBLEY, an individual,
POINT OF ENTRY SUPERVISOR DOE, an individual,
TWO UNKNOWN CUSTOMS AGENTS, individuals,
DOES 1-50, individuals or corporations,
DOES 1-50, individuals,
POINT AGENT DOE, an individual,
SECONDARY INSPECTION AGENT DOE, an individual,
BIOMETRICS AGENT DOE, an individual,
CHECKPOINT SUPERVISOR DOE, an individual,
DOES 101-150, individuals,
ROSA LOPEZ, an individual,
RYAN STARKEY, an individual,
SSAFO SUPERVISOR DOE, an individual,
DOES 151-200, individuals,
DOES 201-250, individuals,
CDR VELEZ, an individual,
CAPT[.] KEELLY, an individual,
ABECS LOCKWOOD, an individual,
KENNETH ROYALS, an individual,
ALFREDO ZABALA JR., an individual,
M. RAMOS, an individual,
V. MARTÍNEZ,
STONE, an individual,
DOES 251-300, an individual,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Plaintiff, Leonardo Ramos-Hernandez, filed pro se on September 7, 2011, a
motion titled “Motion to Partially Reconsider Order of August 25th 2011 and Certification
of Questions for Appeal” (ECF No. 18) asking the Court to reconsider and vacate in part
the August 25 order. See ECF No. 17. The Court must construe the motion to
reconsider liberally because Mr. Ramos-Hernandez 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 to reconsider will
be denied.
Although Mr. Ramos-Hernandez does not identify the procedural basis for his
motion for reconsideration, the Court will treat it as filed pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because no final judgment or order has been entered
in the instant action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) provides, in relevant part:
[A]ny order or other decision, however designated,
that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action
as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any
time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the
claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)
While Rule 54(b) does not address the standards a Court should apply when
assessing a motion to modify an interlocutory order, courts look to the standards under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) for guidance. See Alexander v. California Dep’t of
Corr., No. 08-cv-2773 MCE KHN P, 2010 WL 4006362, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2010)
(unpublished). 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
2

(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.
Relief under Rule 60(b) is appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances. See
Massengale v. Oklahoma Bd. of Examiners in Optometry, 30 F.3d 1325, 1330 (10th
Cir. 1994). Upon consideration of the motion to reconsider and the entire file, the Court
finds that Mr. Ramos-Hernandez fails to demonstrate under either standard some
reason why the Court should reconsider and vacate the August 25 order. The motion to
reconsider will be denied.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion titled “Motion to Partially Reconsider Order of August
25th 2011 and Certification of Questions for Appeal” (ECF No. 18) that Plaintiff,
Leonardo Ramos-Hernandez, filed pro se on September 7, 2011, and which the Court
has treated as a motion pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
is denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 9th

day of

November

, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3