Schupper v. Colorado Department of Corrections, The et al

Filing 184

ORDER Denying Motion for Reconsideration and Order Overruling Objections 181 by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 08/26/13.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02009-WYD-BNB
SANFORD B. SCHUPPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
LISA FITZGERALD,
RANDY OLGUIN,
JOE EASTON, and
JOHN & JANE DOES,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's “Verified Objection to Magistrate
Judge Boland’s Order (ECF No. 159) Filed 12 July 2013 and Motion for Reconsideration
of Minute Order Entered 12 August 2013 by Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel” (ECF No.
181). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is denied and
Plaintiff’s Objections are overruled.
By way of background, on August 12, 2013, I entered an Amended Minute Order
granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s multiple requests for extensions of time to
file objections and responses to various orders and recommendations issued by
Magistrate Judge Boland. (ECF No. 177). Plaintiff requests that I reconsider my ruling
and grant all of his requests for enlargements of time.

There are three major grounds that justify reconsideration of a motion under Rule
59(e): (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. Servants
of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir. 2000); see also Phelps, 122
F.3d at 1324 (“[a] Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment should be granted
‘only to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence’”)
(quotation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, “a motion for reconsideration is
appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the
controlling law.” Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. Such a motion is
committed to the trial court’s discretion. See Phelps, 122 F.3d at 1324.
In the case at hand, the Plaintiff has not advanced any change in the law or
newly discovered evidence. Moreover, he not shown any clear error in my ruling.
District courts have substantial inherent power to control and manage their dockets in
order to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. See In re Atlantic
Pipe Corp., 304 F.3d 135 (1st Cir. 2002). Finally, Plaintiff has not shown that I
misapprehended the facts, his position or controlling law. Accordingly, the only ground
that the Plaintiff could possibly rely on in support of his motion is the need to prevent
manifest injustice. I find that the Plaintiff has not established this need.
In light of Magistrate Judge Boland’s multiple orders thoroughly detailing the
Plaintiff’s history of filing voluminous, redundant, and burdensome papers coupled with
the fact that Plaintiff has been granted numerous extensions of time to file various
documents, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. (See ECF Nos. 57, 97, 174,
-2-

and 177).
Plaintiff also filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Boland’s order denying various
motions filed by Plaintiff including a motion for a writ of mandamus, discovery requests,
the appointment of an investigator, and the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 159).
Since Plaintiff’s Objections are timely, I must review Magistrate Judge Boland's order to
determine whether it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" since the nature of this
matter is nondispositive. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). "An order is clearly erroneous when the
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been made." Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 147 F.R.D. 237, 242 (D. Colo.
1993).
Here, Plaintiff's Objections largely consist of conclusory statements asserting that
Magistrate Judge Boland’s rulings were erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff also
offers excuses as to why he has failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the governing rules of this Court, or Magistrate Judge Boland’s prior orders.
Based on my careful review, I cannot find that Magistrate Judge Boland abused his
broad discretion to effectively manage this case or that his order issued July 12, 2013
was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, I overrule Plaintiff's Objections.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff's “Verified Objection to Magistrate Judge Boland’s Order
(ECF No. 159) Filed 12 July 2013 and Motion for Reconsideration of Minute Order
Entered 12 August 2013 by Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel” (ECF No. 181) is DENIED to
the extent that it requests reconsideration of my ruling. Further, Plaintiff’s Objections
-3-

are OVERRULED.
Dated: August 26, 2013

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
WILEY Y. DANIEL,
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-