Wollnick v. Benson et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying 12 "Motion: Relief From a Judgment Order" by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 5/22/14.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-00731-BNB
CHARLES DALE WOLLNICK,
Plaintiff,
v.
KAREN D. BENSON,
ROBERT DOUGLAS WOLLNICK, and
ELIZABETH M. MONTGOMERY,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Plaintiff, Charles Dale Wollnick, has filed pro se a document titled “Plaintiff’s
Motion: Relief From a Judgment Order (Pursuant to Federal Rule 60(6)” (ECF No. 12)
asking the Court to reconsider and vacate the Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 10) and the
Judgment (ECF No. 11) entered in this action on April 18, 2014. The Court must
construe the motion to reconsider liberally because Mr. Wollnick 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 to
reconsider will be denied.
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). Because Mr.
Wollnick’s motion to reconsider was filed more than twenty-eight days after the
Judgment was entered on April 18, 2014, the Court will consider the motion pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243 (stating that motion to
reconsider filed after ten-day limit for filing a Rule 59(e) motion under prior version of
that rule should be construed as a Rule 60(b) motion). 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).
The Court dismissed the instant action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The
Court specifically determined that Mr. Wollnick’s claims are barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine, which prohibits the Court from reviewing and reversing a state court
judgment. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486
(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). The Court reasoned
in the alternative that, in the event the state court judgment was not final at the time this
action was filed, the Court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over Mr. Wollnick’s
claims in accordance with the Younger abstention doctrine. See Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 44 (1971). Mr. Wollnick asserts in the motion to reconsider that his right to
appeal in state court was violated and that the Younger abstention doctrine does not bar
his claims because there are no ongoing state court proceedings.
After review of the motion to reconsider and the entire file, the Court finds that
Mr. Wollnick fails to demonstrate any extraordinary reason why the Court should
reconsider and vacate the order to dismiss this action. Although Mr. Wollnick contends
2

his claims are not barred by the Younger abstention doctrine, he does not address the
determination that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion: Relief From a Judgment Order (Pursuant to
Federal Rule 60(6)” (ECF No. 12) is DENIED.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 22nd day of

May

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

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

3