Robledo-Valdez v. West et al
ORDER denying 14 Motion to Reconsider. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 5/14/2014.(klyon, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00818-BNB
2 UNKNOWN TIME COMPUTATION OFFICERS
2 UNKNOWN PAROLE BOARD MEMBERS,
CHAIRMAN OF PAROLE BOARD,
HEAD OF OFFENDER SERVICES,
JAMES SINNOTT, and
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Plaintiff, Craig Robledo-Valdez, has filed pro se a “Petition for
Rehearing/Reconsideration” (ECF No. 14) asking the Court to reconsider and vacate
the Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 12) and the Judgment (ECF No. 13) entered in this
action on April 18, 2014. The Court must construe the motion to reconsider liberally
because Mr. Robledo-Valdez 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). The Court will
consider the motion to reconsider filed by Mr. Robledo-Valdez 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 as legally frivolous and malicious because
the claims Mr. Robledo-Valdez asserts are repetitive of the claims he asserted in a prior
action the Court dismissed as legally frivolous. See Robledo v. West, No. 13-cv-01577LTB (D. Colo. Jan. 21, 2014), appeal filed, No. 14-1067 (10th Cir. filed Feb. 24, 2014).
Mr. Robledo-Valdez asserts in the motion to reconsider that his claims are not frivolous,
but he does not address the fact that the claims are repetitive of the claims he raised in
After reviewing the motion to reconsider and the entire file, the Court finds that
Mr. Robledo-Valdez fails to demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider
and vacate the order to dismiss this action. Mr. Robledo-Valdez has filed an appeal in
13-cv-01577-LTB challenging the Court’s determination that his claims are legally
frivolous. He may not file a second action asserting the same claims. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the “Petition for Rehearing/Reconsideration” (ECF No. 14) is
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this
14th 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?