Adams v. Berkebile
ORDER denying 20 Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 8/19/14.(dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02001-LTB
D. BERKEBILE, Warden,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Pending is the Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) filed pro se by Applicant on
August 15, 2014. Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order of Dismissal
entered on November 4, 2013. The Court must construe the Motion liberally because
Applicant 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.
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
Applicant fails to demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider and vacate
the November 4, 2013 Order of Dismissal. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), ECF No. 20, is
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?