Stine v. Kuta et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 9 Mr. Stines Motion to Reconsider, filed on June 19,2013, is construed as a Motion to Reconsider filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 6/28/2013.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00994-LTB

MIKEAL GLENN STINE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MR. S. M. KUTA, ADX,
MR. P. KLEIN, Captain ADX,
LT. GIACONI, SHU Supervisor ADX,
LT. ALVAREZ, ADX,
MR. M. ANDREIS, Health Serv. Provider,
MR. D. PARRY, Corr. Officer, ADX,
MR. T. GARDINER, Corr. Officer ADX, and
JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS, (Unknown at this Time),
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider that Plaintiff Mikeal
Glenn Stine, a pro se prisoner litigant, filed on June 19, 2013. Mr. Stine is in the
custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons and currently is incarcerated at ADX in
Florence, Colorado. Mr. Stine seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Denial of Request
entered on April 23, 2013. The Court must construe the Motion liberally because Mr.
Stine is a pro se litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). For the reasons stated below, the
Court will deny the Motion.
A litigant subject to an adverse judgment, and who seeks reconsideration by the
district court of that adverse judgment, may “file either a motion to alter or amend the

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243
(10th Cir. 1991). A motion to alter or amend the judgment must be filed within
twenty-eight days after the judgment is entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because
the Motion to Reconsider was filed more than twenty-eight days after the denial of his
request to proceed was entered, the Court will consider the Motion pursuant to Rule
60(b) See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243.
Mr. Stine claims that he does not have access to the information he is required to
provide as part of the filing restrictions he is subject to under Stine v. Lappin, et al., No.
07-cv-01839-WYD-KLM, ECF No. 344 at 30-32 (D. Colo. Sept. 1, 2009). It is not the
responsibility of the Court to assist Mr. Stine in complying with his filing restrictions.
Nonetheless, Mr. Stine asserts that he now has obtained the necessary information
through an investigative service in Kansas. As for Mr. Stine’s claim that someone is
fraudulently using his name and filing actions in courts throughout the United States, the
claim is conclusory and vague.
Relief under Rule 60(b) is appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances. See
Massengale v. Oklahoma Bd. of Examiners in Optometry, 30 F.3d 1325, 1330 (10th Cir.
1994). Upon consideration of the Motion and the entire file, the Court finds that Mr.
Stine fails to demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider and vacate the
April 23, 2013 Denial of Request. If Mr. Stine believes he now has all the required
information to comply with his filing restrictions he may do so by filing a new request.
Accordingly, it is

2

ORDERED that Mr. Stine’s Motion to Reconsider, ECF No. 9, filed on June 19,
2013, is construed as a Motion to Reconsider filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and
is denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 28th day of

June

, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3