Karsten v. Davis et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying 32 Motion for Reconsideration. This matter was dismissed "without prejudice." That means Plaintiff is free to re-file a complaint without seeking further judicial permission, either from this Court or from the Court of Appeals. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 06/10/13. (alvsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02107-RM-KLM
BRIAN RAY KARSTEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BLAKE R. DAVIS,
P.A. CAMACHO,
AMBER L. NELSON, and
FIVE JOHN/JANE DOES,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the June 7, 2013 Motion For Reconsideration Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) filed by Plaintiff Brian Ray Karsten. (ECF No. 32.) For the reason
specified below, this Motion will be denied.
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 review of the motion for reconsideration, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to
demonstrate or even allege that any of the grounds justifying reconsideration exist in his case.
Notwithstanding the above, for the benefit of Plaintiff, the Court explains the following:
This matter was dismissed “without prejudice.” That means Plaintiff is free to re-file a complaint
without seeking further judicial permission, either from this Court or from the Court of Appeals.

1

In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 26) is
DENIED.
Dated this 10th day of June, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________
Raymond P. Moore
United States District Judge

2