Duncan v. Ritter Jr. et al

Filing 63

ORDER: Duncan's Objection to Order Adopting Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 62 , filed September 24,2014, construed as a motion to reconsider, is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/30/2014. (trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00301-REB-BNB
JAMES ROGER DUNCAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, governor,
RICK RAEMISCH, executive director,
WARDEN MILYARD,
WARDEN FALK, and
CASE MANAGER LUECK,
Defendants.

ORDER
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is plaintiff’s submission entitled Duncans Objected to
Order Adopting Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [#62],1
filed September 24, 2014. By this motion, plaintiff essentially asks me to reconsider my
Order Adopting Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [#59],
filed September 8, 2014, which dismissed without prejudice plaintiff’s claims against
former Colorado governor Bill Ritter, Jr., for failure to effectuate service of process. As
thus construed, I deny the motion.
Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings more
liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
1

“[#62]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167
L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). Nevertheless, the bases for
granting reconsideration are extremely limited:
Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (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. Thus, a motion for
reconsideration is appropriate where the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the
controlling law. It is not appropriate to revisit issues already
addressed or advance arguments that could have been
raised in prior briefing.
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations
omitted).
Nothing in plaintiff’s latest submission implicates any of these bases for
reconsidering a prior order of the court. The court did not receive the particular
objection which plaintiff appended to the instant motion, but that objection is not
dissimilar in tone or content from others that plaintiff has filed in this case. As I have
noted previously, plaintiff appears to be under the wholly mistaken impression that the
entirety of his case has been dismissed. Such is most emphatically not the case.
Plaintiff’s claims against former Colorado governor Bill Ritter have been dismissed
without prejudice, and plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint likewise was
denied without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice leaves plaintiff free to reurge his
claims against the dismissed defendant – so long as he provides an address for service

2

of process – as well as to seek leave to amend his complaint – so long as he complies
with the requirement of submitting a proposed amended complaint with his motion.
(See Order {#54], filed August 6, 2014.)
Plaintiff’s alleged lack of schooling in the law does not absolve him of educating
himself as to proper court procedures, or of reading the court’s orders – which are not
couched in legalese or otherwise difficult to understand – in an effort to understand the
court’s rulings and stay apprised of how this case is progressing.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Duncans Objected to Order Adopting
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [#62], filed September 24,
2014, construed as a motion to reconsider, is DENIED
Dated September 30, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3