Lee v. Banuelos et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 75 Motion for Reconsideration. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 08/13/2014. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01895-CMA-MJW
MARIO ANTON LEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
BENUELOS, LIEUTENANT,
BERRY, LIEUTENANT,
M. EBENHART, OFFICER,
ERPS, OFFICER,
HUDDLESTON, NURSE (EMT),
LENGREN, NURSE,
LEE, OFFICER,
LITVAN, LIEUTENANT,
MARTINEZ, LIEUTENANT,
MOHLER, OFFICER,
ROY, OFFICER,
SHORT, OFFICER,
THOMPSON, P.A.,
J. WISEMAN, OFFICER,
McDERMOTT, MEDICAL DIRECTOR,
all of the above in their individual and official capacities,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Mario Anton Lee’s Motion for
Reconsideration, filed on July 1, 2014. (Doc. # 75.) For the following reasons, the
Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The Court, therefore, liberally construes his papers
and pleadings and holds them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
attorneys. Trackwell v. United States Government, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir.
2007). However, Plaintiff's pro se status does not entitle him to application of different
rules. Wells v. Krebs, 2010 WL 3521777, at *2 (D. Colo. Sept. 1, 2010).
Plaintiff properly filed this motion within Rule 59’s twenty-eight day time limitation.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), “[g]rounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an
intervening change in controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3)
the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of Paraclete v.
Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). However, reconsideration “is not
appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have
been raised in prior briefing.” Id.
Plaintiff asks for relief on four bases. He argues that (1) he is entitled to an
evidentiary hearing; (2) he is entitled to a 90 days to exhaust his administrative
remedies; (3) his administrative remedy process form was forged; and (4) administrative
officers retaliated against Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s first two contentions were considered and rejected by this Court. (Doc.
# 70 at 2-3.) Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any of the three grounds for
reconsideration are present. Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration of these
arguments. See Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
Plaintiff’s second two contentions are arguments that Plaintiff could have raised
previously, but chose not to. Indeed, the document Plaintiff claims was forged is dated

2

2013 and he filed a Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal alleging that document
was a forgery on April 10, 2013. (Doc. # 75 at 17.) As for Plaintiff’s retaliation claim,
each instance of alleged retaliation appears to have taken place before he filed his
response to the underlying motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 10-11.) It is
inappropriate to use a Rule 59 motion to revisit arguments previously addressed by the
Court or to make legal arguments that could have been raised before. See Servants of
Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. Accordingly, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff the relief
it seeks.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. # 75) is DENIED.
DATED: August 13, 2014

BY THE COURT:

________________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3