Carbajal v. St. Anthony Central Hospital et al

Filing 150

ORDER denying 146 Motion for Reconsideration, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 10/30/2013.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02257-REB-KLM
DEAN CARBAJAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. ANTHONY CENTRAL HOSPITAL, a corporation,
CENTURA HEALTH, a corporation,
APEX, a corporation,
STEPHAN M. SWAN, Physician Assistant, in his individual and official capacity,
GREGORY J. ENGLUND, Registered Nurse, in his individual and official capacity,
MARCI HANSHUE, Registered Nurse, in her individual and official capacity,
MICHAEL O’NIELL, Police Officer For the Denver Police Department, in his individual
and official capacity,
JAY LOPEZ, Police Officer For the Denver Police Department, in his individual and
official capacity,
LARRY BLACK, Police Officer For the Denver Police Department, in his individual and
official capacity, and
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Plaintiff Mr. Carbajal’s Contemporaneous Objection
to the Trial Court’s Issued September 6, 2013 Concerning United States
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendations [#146],1 filed October 22, 2013, which I
construe as a motion for reconsideration of the referenced Order Re:
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [#133], filed September 6,
2013. Exercising my prerogative under D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C., I rule on the motion

1

“[#146]” is an example of the convention I use to refer to the docket number of a particular filing.

without awaiting the benefit of a reply. As thus construed, I deny the motion.
The plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have construed his pleadings more
liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167
L.Ed.2d 1081 (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, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)).
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
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).
Plaintiff’s objection offers nothing to suggest that any of these factors are
implicated here. Instead, he merely rehashes arguments previously advanced, which
are no more persuasive now than they were before. Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with
my order provides no proper basis on which to reconsider the matters determined
therein.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Mr. Carbajal’s Contemporaneous
Objection to the Trial Court’s Issued September 6, 2013 Concerning United States

2

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendations [#146], filed October 22, 2013, construed as a
motion for reconsideration, is DENIED.
Dated October 29, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3