Freeman v. Woolston et al

Filing 126

ORDER denying 122 Motion for Reconsideration,as set forth in the Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 7/27/2012.(mjwcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01756-DME-MJW
MARCUS LELAND FREEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WOOLSTON, Vocational Instructor, and
LIKEN, Education Department,

Defendant(s).

ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE ORDER ENTERED (DOC.
118)[SIC] TO DENY THE PLAINTIFF RELIEF IN THE MATTERS OF DISCOVERY
(DOC. 100)[SIC] AND IN CAMERA REVIEW (DOC. 114)[SIC]
(DOCKET NO. 122)

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

This matter was before the court for consideration on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration to the Order (Doc 118)[sic] to Deny the Plaintiff Relief in the Matters of
Discovery (Doc. 100)[sic] and In Camera Review (Doc.114)[sic] (docket no. 122). The
court has considered the subject motion (docket no. 122) and the response (docket no.
125) thereto. In addition, the court has taken judicial notice of the court’s file and has
considered applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. The court now
being fully informed makes the following finding of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The court finds:

2
1.

That I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties
to this lawsuit;

2.

That venue is proper in the state and District of Colorado.

3.

That each party has been given a fair and adequate opportunity to
be heard.

4.

That “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognize no motion for
reconsideration.” Hawkins v. Evans, 64 F.3d 543, 546 (10th Cir.
1995) (quotation and internal quotation marks omitted). “The
court’s treatment of the motion for reconsideration depends on
whether the order is a final order that disposes of all claims and all
parties or is an interlocutory order.” Gagliardi v. Duran, 2009 WL
5220679, *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 31, 2009). “[A]ny order . . . however
designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights
and liabilities of fewer that all the parties is an interlocutory order
which is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment
adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the
parties.” Id. (quoting Raytheon Constructors, Inc. v. Asarco Inc.,
368 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2003); National Bus. Brokers, Ltd. v.
Jim Williamson Productions, Inc., 115 F. Supp.2d 1250, 1255 (D.
Colo. 2000)). “Notwithstanding the court’s broad discretion to alter
its interlocutory orders, the motion to reconsider ‘is not at the
disposal of parties who want to rehash old arguments.’” National
Bus. Brokers, 115 F. Supp.2d at 1256 (quotation and internal

3
quotation marks omitted). “Rather, as a practical matter, ‘[t]o
succeed in a motion to reconsider, a party must set forth facts or
law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its
prior decision.’” Id. (quotation omitted). “A motion to reconsider . . .
should be denied unless it clearly demonstrates manifest error of
law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence.” Id.
5.

That my Order (dated July 11, 2012 - docket no. 118) outlines, in
detail, the factual and legal basis of my decision on the Defendant’s
prior motions (docket nos. 114 and 100) which is the subject matter
of the subject motion (docket no. 122). The Pro Se Incarcerated
Plaintiff never filed any timely Objection to such Order (docket no.
118) as permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. See docket sheet.
Instead, the Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff filed the subject motion
(docket no. 122). The three major grounds that justify
reconsideration are : (1) an intervening change in controlling law;
(2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Shields v. Shelter,
120 F.R.D. 123, 126 (D. Colo. 1988). Here, I find that the Pro Se
Incarcerated Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any basis in law or
fact for this court to reconsider my Order (docket no. 118), and the
Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff has further failed to justify
reconsideration of my Order (docket no. 118) under Shield. Id.
ORDER

4
WHEREFORE, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law this
court ORDERS:
1.

That on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration to the Order (Doc.
118)[sic] to Deny the Plaintiff Relief in the Matters of Discovery
(Doc. 100)[sic] and In Camera Review (Doc. 114)[sic] (docket no.
122) is DENIED; and

2.

That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this
motion.
Done this 27th day of July 2012.
BY THE COURT
s/Michael J. Watanabe
MICHAEL J. WATANABE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE