Goodman v. USA

Filing 44

ORDER denying 42 and 43 Motions for Leave To Make a Statement Likely To Manifest a Specific Cause of Action. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 10/21/2013.(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 DENYING MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the petitioner’s Motion for Leave To Make a
Statement Likely To Manifest a Specific Cause of Action [#42 & 43]1 filed October
18, 2013. The motions docketed as [#42] and [#43] appear to be identical. I deny the
motions.
The petitioner is acting pro se. Therefore, I construe his filings generously and
with the leniency due pro se litigants, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007);
Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Belmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).
Recently, I entered an order [#40] granting the respondent’s motion to dismiss,
which resulted in the dismissal of this case. Judgment [#41] entered in favor of the
respondent against the petitioner. In his most recent motions, the petitioner asserts that
1

“[#42]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

he has a valid cause of action and appears to seek reconsideration of my order
dismissing this case.
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). The petitioner’s most recent motions offer nothing suggesting that any of
these factors are implicated here. Instead, he merely rehashes arguments previously
advanced; arguments which are no more persuasive now than they were before.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion for Leave To Make
a Statement Likely To Manifest a Specific Cause of Action [#42 & 43] filed October
18, 2013, are DENIED.
Dated October 21, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2