Goodman v. USA

Filing 24

ORDER denying 22 Objection to Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion forDisqualification of District Judge Robert E. Blackburn and denying as moot 23 Objection to Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Disqualification of District Judge Robert E. Blackburn. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 7/10/2013. (klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01369-REB-BNB
LAURENCE R. GOODMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is plaintiff’s Objection to Order Denying Plaintiff’s
Motion for Disqualification of District Judge Robert E. Blackburn [#22],1 filed July
5, 2013, which I construe as a motion for reconsideration of the referenced Order
Denying Plaintiff’s Motion For Disqualification of District Judge Robert E.
Blackburn [#21], filed July 2, 2013.2 As thus construed, I deny the motion.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I continue to construe his pleadings and
papers 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
1
2

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

Plaintiff filed an identical objection on July 8, 2013 [#23]. Likewise construed as a motion for
reconsideration, that objection is denied as moot.

U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)).
Nevertheless, 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 suggesting 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.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That plaintiff’s Objection to Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Disqualification of District Judge Robert E. Blackburn [#22], filed July 5, 2013, is
DENIED; and
2. That plaintiff’s Objection to Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Disqualification of District Judge Robert E. Blackburn [#23], filed July 8, 2013, is
DENIED as moot.
Dated July 10, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT: