Carbajal et al v. Morrissey et al

Filing 177

ORDER Denying Motion to Reconsider. ORDERED that Plaintiffs Contemporaneous Objection to the Court's Order Overruling Plaintiffs Objection to Magistrate Judge Kristen Mix's November 13, 2013 Order [#176], filed January 8, 2014, construed as a motion to reconsider, is DENIED by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 01/13/14. (jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03231-REB-KLM
VICTORIA CARBAJAL,
DEAN CARBAJAL, and
LUIS LEAL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MITCHELL R. MORRISSEY, D.A. for the Second Judicial District, in his official and
individual capacities, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Plaintiff’s[1] Contemporaneous Objection to the
Court’s Order Overruling Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Kristen Mix’s
November 13, 2013 Order [#176],2 filed January 8, 2014, which I construe as a motion
to reconsider the referenced Order Overruling Plaintiffs’ Contemporaneous
Objection to Magistrate Judge Kristen Mix’s November 13, 2013 Order [#171], filed
December 19, 2013.3 As thus construed, I deny the motion.
Mr. Carbajal is proceeding pro se. Thus, I continue to construe his pleadings
more liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings and
1
2

3

The motion is filed by plaintiff Dean Carbajal alone.
“[#176]” is an example of the convention I use to refer to the docket number of a particular filing.

Exercising my prerogative under D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d), I rule on the motion without
awaiting the benefit of a response.

papers 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)). Nevertheless, the
bases for granting reconsideration are 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).
Nothing in Mr. Carbajal’s bare-bones recitation addresses these factors or
otherwise indicates that any of them are implicated here. Instead, Mr. Carbajal purports
to simply “stand[] on his arguments and authority asserted in his contemporaneous
objection [Doc. #168],” claiming that the court’s decision overruling that earlier objection
was unreasonable and an abuse of discretion. As noted above, however, a motion for
reconsideration “is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed,” and plaintiff’s
disagreement with my ruling, no matter how sincere, provides no justification for
revisiting my previous order.

2

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Contemporaneous Objection
to the Court’s Order Overruling Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Kristen
Mix’s November 13, 2013 Order [#176], filed January 8, 2014, construed as a motion
to reconsider, is DENIED.
Dated January 13, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3