Brooks v. Medina et al

Filing 123

ORDER. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Plaintiff's "Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Request for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 (b), 59(e) or 60(b)" (Doc. No. 115 ) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to Amend Prisoner's Complaint " (Doc. No. 118 ) is DENIED. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 04/02/2015. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 13–cv–02213–CMA–KMT

KEITH CLAYTON BROOKS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID GABRIEL, individually and in his official capacity as Captain, CDOC,
TRISHA MATHILL-AARON, individually and in her official capacity as Sergeant, CDOC
JAMES GILLIS, individually and in his official capacity as Lieutenant, CDOC,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reconsider Order Denying
Request for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b),
59(e) or 60(b)” (Doc. No. 115 [Mot.], filed March 30, 2015).
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this court’s Minute Order denying his motion for
extension of time to file a motion to amend his complaint. (See Mot.) The court must construe
the motion to reconsider liberally because Plaintiff is not represented by an attorney. See Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
A motion for reconsideration “is an extreme remedy to be granted in rare circumstances.”
Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 944 (10th Cir. 1995). It is well established in
the Tenth Circuit that grounds for a motion to reconsider are limited to the following: “(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.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204
F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Brumark, 57 F.3d at 948). Therefore, a motion to
reconsider is “appropriate [only] where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s
position, or the controlling law.” Id.
In its Minute Order, this court stated the following:
Plaintiff has been given two previous extensions to file a motion to amend his
complaint, based on extensions of time granted to the defendants to submit their
discovery responses to Plaintiff. The defendants submitted their responses to
Plaintiff on January 22, 2015. Plaintiff waited until February 12, 2015, to mail
the present motion for extension of time, which was filed with the court after the
deadline of February 12, 2015, to file a motion to amend. Moreover, Plaintiff,
though he apparently is unsatisfied with the defendants’ responses to his
discovery requests, still has not filed a motion to compel or seek further court
assistance, despite the fact that his reason for wanting a further extension of time
to file an amended complaint is due to the defendants’ inadequate responses. The
court finds Plaintiff has failed to show good cause, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4), to further modify the deadline for amending his pleading . . . .
In his motion to reconsider, Plaintiff presents no argument regarding “an intervening
change in the controlling law.” Brumark Corp., 57 F.3d at 944. Moreover, though Plaintiff
argues that Defendant should have been more diligent in its discovery conduct, and that the
extensions previously granted to him were due to Defendants’ delays, this is not newly discovery
evidence and does not demonstrate that the court erred in denying Plaintiff’s motion for an
extension of time to file his motion to amend the complaint. See id. Additionally, the court took
the delays by the defendants into account by allowing Plaintiff two previous extensions of time
to file his motion to amend the complaint. (See Doc. Nos. 93, 97.) Finally, Plaintiff has shown
neither that the court has made a “clear error” nor that the court’s previous Minute Order must be
modified to “prevent manifest injustice.” Brumark Corp., 57 F.3d at 944.
2

Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Request
for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b), 59(e) or
60(b)” (Doc. No. 115) is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Amend Prisoner’s Complaint” (Doc.
No. 118) is DENIED.
Dated this 2nd day of April, 2015.

3