Stocks v. Fogg, et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 13 Mr. Stocks Motion for Appeal, filed on February 14, 2014, is construed as a Motion to Reconsider filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b), by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 2/19/2014.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02982-LTB
THOMAS STOCKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. NATHAN FOGG,
SGT. MICHAEL MORRIS,
DEPUTY P. BOLTE,
MICHAEL BALDING,
DEPUTY LITWEITER,
JOHN WEILER,
DEPUTY ANTILLA, and
SGT. CHRISTOPHER GABRIEL,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Now before the Court is the Motion for Appeal that Plaintiff, Thomas Stocks, filed
pro se on February 14, 2014. Mr. Stocks seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order of
Dismissal entered on January 16, 2014. The Court must construe the Motion liberally
because Mr. Stocks 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 construe the Motion as a Motion to Reconsider filed pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and deny the Motion.
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
twenty-eight days after the judgment is entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because
the Motion to Reconsider was filed more than twenty-eight days after the dismissal of
this case, the Court will consider the Motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) See Van Skiver,
952 F.2d at 1243.
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 Mr.
Stocks fails to demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider and vacate
the January 16, 2014 Order of Dismissal. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Stock’s Motion for Appeal, ECF No. 13, filed on February 14,
2014, is construed as a Motion to Reconsider filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and
is denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 19th

day of

February

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

2