Brown v. Beicker

Filing 12

ORDER denying 11 Motion to Reconsider, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 11/22/11.(lyg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02399-LTB
STEVIE BROWN,
Applicant,
v.
JAMES L. BEICKER,
Respondent.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Applicant, Stevie Brown, has filed pro se on November 16, 2011, a “Motion for
Reconsideration and to Amend Application (Submittal)” (Doc. #11). Mr. Brown asks the
Court to reconsider and vacate the Order of Dismissal and the Judgment entered in this
action on October 28, 2011. The Court must construe the motion to reconsider liberally
because Mr. Brown 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.
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. Brown’s motion to reconsider pursuant to Rule 59(e) because the motion
was filed within twenty-eight days after the Judgment was entered in this action. See
Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243 (stating that motion to reconsider filed within ten-day limit
for filing a Rule 59(e) motion under prior version of that rule should be construed as a
Rule 59(e) motion).
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.
Mr. Brown asserted two claims for relief in the instant habeas corpus action. He
alleged in his first claim that his constitutional right to be free from excessive bail was
being violated in connection with his ongoing state court criminal case. He alleged in
his second claim that he was being denied appropriate medical treatment at the facility
in which he is housed. The Court dismissed the action without prejudice. The Court
specifically determined that intervention in Mr. Brown’s state court criminal case was not
appropriate under the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
The Court determined that the medical treatment claim could not be raised in this
habeas corpus action and dismissed that claim without prejudice to being raised in a
proper action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

2

On consideration of the motion to reconsider and the entire file, the Court finds
that Mr. Brown fails to demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider and
vacate the order to dismiss this action. In an effort to overcome the presumption of
abstention under Younger, Mr. Brown alleges in the motion to reconsider that he is not
guilty of the charges pending against him, that other inmates have made allegations
regarding disparate treatment of minorities, and that a civil rights action he filed against
unspecified governmental entities may have motivated the individuals pressing charges
against him. However, Mr. Brown’s unsupported allegations of bad faith and
harassment are not sufficient to overcome the presumption of abstention. See Phelps
v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885, 889-90 (10th Cir. 1997). Therefore, the motion to reconsider
will be denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the “Motion for Reconsideration and to Amend Application
(Submittal)” (Doc. #11) filed on November 16, 2011, is denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 22nd

day of

November

, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

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

3