Adams v. Berkebile

Filing 21

ORDER denying 20 Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 8/19/14.(dkals, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 13-cv-02001-LTB ERIC ADAMS, Applicant, v. D. BERKEBILE, Warden, Respondent. 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 denied. DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 19th day of August BY THE COURT: s/Lewis T. Babcock LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge United States District Court 2 , 2014.

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?