Blackfeather v. No Named Defendant

Filing 14

ORDER denying motions. Denying as moot 12 Motion for Order; denying 13 Motion for Order, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/10/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-00074-LTB
MICAH BLACKFEATHER,
Applicant,
v.
[NO RESPONDENT NAMED],
Respondent.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

Applicant, Micah Blackfeather, filed pro se on March 3, 2014, a Motion to the
Court (ECF No. 13) and a Motion for Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 12). The Court must
construe the motions liberally because Mr. Blackfeather 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). For the reasons discussed below, the motions will be
denied.
In the Motion to the Court (ECF No. 13) Mr. Blackfeather apparently asks the
Court to reconsider and vacate the Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 10) and the Judgment
(ECF No. 11) entered in this action on February 19, 2014. 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). The Court will consider the Motion to the Court
pursuant to Rule 59(e) because the motion 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.
The Court dismissed the instant action without prejudice because Mr.
Blackfeather failed to cure certain deficiencies. In particular, Mr. Blackfeather failed to
file on the proper form an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 that identifies the claims he intends to pursue in this action and he failed
either to pay the $5.00 filing fee or to file on the proper form a Prisoner’s Motion and
Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action.
Mr. Blackfeather alleges in the Motion to the Court that he filed two copies of a
habeas corpus pleading within the time allowed. Mr. Blackfeather apparently is
referring to the documents titled Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad
Prosequendum (ECF Nos. 4 & 5) filed in this action on January 17, 2014, that seek final
2

disposition of an untried information or complaint. The Court noted in the order
dismissing this action that Mr. Blackfeather had filed these documents. However,
neither document is on the proper form as required by the Court’s local rules and
neither document identifies the specific claims Mr. Blackfeather is asserting in this
action.
After review of the Motion to the Court and the entire file, the Court finds that Mr.
Blackfeather fails to demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider and
vacate the order to dismiss this action. Therefore, the Motion to the Court will be
denied.
The Motion for Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 12) will be denied as moot because
that motion does not address the reasons the instant action was dismissed.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion to the Court (ECF No. 13) and the Motion for Habeas
Corpus (ECF No. 12) are DENIED for the reasons specified in this order.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

10th day of

March

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

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

3