Robledo v. USA

Filing 32

ORDER denying 31 Motion for Reconsideration, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/12/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-02558-LTB
CRAIG ROBLEDO-VALDEZ,
Applicant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
J. DAVIS, and
SUTHERS, Attorney General of the State of Colorado,
Respondents.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

Applicant, Craig Robledo-Valdez, has filed pro se a Petition for Rehearing (ECF
No. 31) asking the Court to reconsider and vacate the Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 24)
and the Judgment (ECF No. 25) entered in this action on February 19, 2014. The Court
must construe the Petition for Rehearing liberally because Mr. Robledo-Valdez 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 litigant subject to an adverse judgment who seeks reconsideration by the
district court of that adverse judgment may “file either a motion to alter or amend the
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243
(10th Cir. 1991). A motion to alter or amend the judgment must be filed within twentyeight days after the judgment is entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Court will

consider the Petition for Rehearing pursuant to Rule 59(e) because the Petition for
Rehearing was filed within twenty-eight days after the Judgment was entered in this
action. See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243 (stating that motion to reconsider filed within
ten-day limit for filing a Rule 59(e) motion under prior version of that rule should be
construed as a Rule 59(e) motion).
A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted “to correct manifest errors of law or to
present newly discovered evidence.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir.
1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Relief under Rule 59(e) also is appropriate
when “the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.”
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). However, a
Rule 59(e) motion is not a new opportunity to revisit issues already addressed or to
advance arguments that could have been raised previously. See id.
Mr. Robledo-Valdez challenges the validity of his convictions in two Park County,
Colorado, cases in the instant habeas corpus action. The Court dismissed the action
without prejudice because the due process claim Mr. Robledo-Valdez asserts in the
Application is unexhausted and procedurally barred. Mr. Robledo-Valdez contends in
the Petition for Rehearing that he is innocent of the crime to which he pleaded guilty,
that he currently is challenging his conviction in the Colorado Supreme Court, and that
his sentence is unlawful.
After review of the Petition for Rehearing and the entire file, the Court finds that
Mr. Robledo-Valdez fails to demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider
and vacate the order dismissing this action. Mr. Robledo-Valdez fails to present any
reasoned argument to demonstrate that his claims are exhausted, that his claims are
2

not procedurally defaulted, or that his procedural default should be excused. Therefore,
the Petition for Rehearing will be denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing (ECF No. 31) is DENIED.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

12th

day of

March

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3