Bussie v. Boehner et al
ORDER denying 8 Motion to Reconsider. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 4/23/2014.(klyon, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00161-LTB
JOHN BOEHNER, House Speaker, and
ROBERT ANDREWS, Congressman,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Plaintiff, Anthony Bussie, filed pro se a Letter with the Court on April 17, 2014
(ECF No. 8) asking the Court to “reopen this case.” The Court must construe the
document liberally because Mr. Bussie 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 motion will be construed liberally as a
motion for reconsideration.
A litigant subject to an adverse judgment, and 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). A motion to
reconsider filed more than twenty-eight days after the final judgment in an action should
be considered pursuant to Rule 60(b). See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243 (stating that a
motion to reconsider should be construed as filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) when it is filed
within the limit set forth under Rule 59(e)). Because the motion was filed more than 28
days after Judgment was entered in this action on March 4, 2014, it will be construed as
a motion to reconsider filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Rule 60(b) provides that “on motion and just terms,” a court may relieve a party
from a final order because of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect . . .
[or] any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6). The Court is
mindful that relief under Rule 60(b) “is extraordinary and may be granted only in
exceptional circumstances.” See Dronsejko v. Thornton, 632 F.3d 658, 664 (10th Cir.
2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The Court has considered Mr. Bussie’s one-page motion, which is largely
unintelligible, along with the entire file, and finds that he has failed to demonstrate some
reason why the Court should reconsider and vacate the order to dismiss this action.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff Anthony Bussie’s request that the Court reopen this
case, filed pro se on April 17, 2014 (ECF No. 8), which the Court has treated as a
motion seeking relief from the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), is DENIED.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 23rd day of
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
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?