Meek v. State of Colorado et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Reconsider, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 12/20/11.(lygsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02693-LTB
ASA MEEK,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF COLORADO (People),
COUNTY OF EAGLE,
ROBERT THOMAS MOOREHEAD, and
GREG CRITTENDENDUM,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Plaintiff, Asa Meek, a state prisoner who is in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections (DOC), filed a pro se motion titled “Motion to Cure
Defenciey’s [sic]” on December 14, 2011. The Court must construe the motion liberally
because Mr. Meek is a pro se litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). The “Motion to Cure
Defenciey’s [sic],” therefore, will be construed as a Motion to Reconsider and will be
denied for the reasons stated below.
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). Mr. Meek filed the Motion to Reconsider within twenty-eight days after

the Order of Dismissal and the Judgment were entered in the instant action. The Court,
therefore, finds that the Motion to Reconsider is filed pursuant to Rule 59(e). See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e).
The three major grounds that justify reconsideration are: (1) an intervening
change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Servants of the Paraclete v.
Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Upon consideration of the motion to
reconsider and the entire file, the Court concludes that Mr. Meek fails to demonstrate
that any of the grounds justifying reconsideration exist in his case.
Mr. Meek initiated this action by filing a pro se Prisoner Complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 on October 17, 2011. He was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis without payment of an initial partial filing fee on November 8, 2011. In the
Complaint, Mr. Meek asserted that his constitutional rights were violated during the
course of his state court criminal proceedings. As relief, Mr. Meek requested
compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to the dismissal of his habitual criminal
convictions. By order dated November 16, 2011, the Court determined that Mr. Meek’s
claims were barred by the ruling set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
Therefore, the action was dismissed without prejudice. Judgment also entered on
November 16, 2011.
In the Motion to Reconsider, Mr. Meek acknowledges that his claims are
currently barred by Heck. He requests that his case “be set over (dismissed without
prejudice) until this plaintiff has time to revisit and exhaust state remedies, then proceed

2

with the above captioned case.” Motion at 2-3. However, Mr. Meek is informed that his
case was dismissed without prejudice. If Mr. Meek’s convictions are invalidated in the
state courts, nothing prevents him from reasserting the claims that were dismissed in
this action. Until that time, Mr. Meek’s claims remain barred by Heck.
Mr. Meek has not asserted any of the major grounds that would justify
reconsideration in his case, and the Motion to Reconsider will be denied. See Servants
of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the “Motion to Cure Defenciey’s [sic],” filed on December 14,
2011, is construed as a Motion to Reconsider and is denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 20th

day of

December

, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

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

3