Johnson v. Suthers et al

Filing 102

ORDER denying 101 Motion to Reconsider. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/12/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 12-cv-00096-REB-MJW
ROBERT WAYNE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN SUTHERS, Attorney General of Colorado, individually and in his official capacity;
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Governor of Colorado, individually and in his official capacity;
BILL RITTER, former Governor of Colorado, individually and in his official capacity;
REGGIE BICHA, Executive Director, Colorado, Department of Human Services,
individually and in his official capacity;
KAREN BEYE, former Executive Director, Colorado, Department of Human Services,
individually and in her official capacity;
MARY ANN HICKS, Administrative Program Specialist, Colorado Division of Child Support
Enforcement, individually;
MARDI HOUSTON, Evaluation Specialist, Colorado Division of Child Support, individually;
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, EL PASO COUNTY, in their official capacities;
BILL LOUIS, County Attorney of El Paso County, Colorado, individually and in his official
capacity;
RICHARD BENGTSSON, Director, El Paso County Department of Human Services,
individually and in his official capacity;
TONI HERMAN, El Paso County Department of Human Services, individually;
LAURA DAVIDSON, former employee of Policy Studies, Inc., individually;
CLAUDIA SMITH-SWAIN, former employee of Policy Studies, Inc., individually;
JONICA BRUNNER, former employee of Policy Studies, Inc. and current employee of
Young Williams, P.C., individually;
MELISSA BALQUIN, former employee of Policy Studies, Inc. and current employee of

Young Williams, P.C., individually;
POLICY STUDIES, INC.;
JEFF BALL, current employee of Young Williams, P.C., individually; and
YOUNG WILLIAMS, P.C.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the plaintiff’s Motion To Rescind Rulers Final Order
[#101]1 field November 7, 2013. I deny the motion.
Tlaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I continue to construe his pleadings more
liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings 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) (citing
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).
On July 3, 2012, Final Judgment [#92] entered in favor of the defendants against
the plaintiff. Judgment entered because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Order
[#91]. In his present motion, the plaintiff appears to ask the court to reconsider and
withdraw its order dismissing this case.
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

1

“[#101]” 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

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). The plaintiff does not claim or circumstantiate a ground for reconsideration.
Munificently, the plaintiff’s motion could be read as a motion to alter or amend the
judgment under FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), or a motion for relief from judgment under FED. R.
CIV. P. 60(b). However, the motion was filed far outside of the 28 day deadline specified
in Rule 59(e), and it was not filed within a reasonable time after judgment, as required
by Rule 60(b). Thus, even viewed as a motion under Rules 59(e) or 60(b), the motion is
denied as untimely.
Instead, the plaintiff merely makes a series of statements evidencing his
dissatisfaction with the rulings of this court and other courts. The plaintiff’s mere
disagreement with my order provides no proper basis on which to reconsider the
matters determined previously in this case or to grant any relief from the extant
judgment.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion To Rescind Rulers
Final Order [#101] filed November 7, 2013, is DENIED.
Dated November 12, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3