Brown v. Colorado Revised Statute 13-15-101

Filing 9

ORDER denying 7 Motion to Reconsider. The motion titled "Motion to Amend Complaint" (ECF No. 8 ) is denied as moot. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 6/17/2014.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-01408-LTB
WESLEY R. “WOLF” BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLORADO REVISED STATUTE § 13-15-101. Petition - proceedings {for Change of
Name} Challenge to Constitutionality,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Plaintiff, Wesley R. “Wolf” Brown, alleges that he is homeless. He filed pro se on
June 9, 2014, a motion titled “Motion for Reconsideration” (ECF No. 7) asking the Court
to reconsider its Order of Dismissal and Judgment entered on May 30, 2014. The Court
must construe the motion to reconsider liberally because Mr. Brown 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 treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e),
and 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 twenty-

eight days after the judgment is entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Mr. Brown’s
motion was filed ten days after the Court’s May 30 dismissal order and judgment.
Therefore, The Court will consider Mr. Brown’s June 9 motion 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.
On May 30, the Court dismissed the instant action with prejudice as legally
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and warned Mr. Brown that the Court
may place reasonable restrictions on any litigant who files non-meritorious actions and
generally abuses the judicial process. The May 30 dismissal order discusses in detail
the reasons for the dismissal and the warning about the possible imposition of future
sanctions. See ECF No. 11.
After review of the motion to reconsider and the entire file, the Court finds that
Mr. Brown fails to demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider and
vacate the order to dismiss this action. The Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion does not alter
2

the Court’s conclusion that this action properly was dismissed. Therefore, the Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) motion will be denied.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion titled “Motion for Reconsideration” (ECF No. 7) that
Plaintiff, Wesley R. “Wolf” Brown, filed pro se on June 9, 2014, and which the Court has
treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), is
denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion titled “Motion to Amend Complaint” (ECF
No. 8) is denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 17th

day of

June

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

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

3