Sanchez v. Booth et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 13 Motion to correct corrupt (illegal) ruling, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 11/10/2014.(tscha, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 14–cv–02113–RM–KMT
FEILBERTO SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER WERTH,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to correct corrupt (illegal) ruling”
(Doc. No. 13, filed October 30, 2014).
As no judgment has been entered in this case, the court construes Plaintiff’s motion as
one to reconsider Senior District Judge Lewis T. Babcock’s Order to Dismiss and to Draw in
Part (Doc. No. 9, filed October 9, 2014). The three main grounds that justify reconsideration are
“(1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3)
the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does,
204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A motion to reconsider must, “among other things,
present matter that is material and of such importance that it would likely alter the outcome . . . .”
Aldrich Enters., Inc. v. United States, 938 F.2d 1134, 1143 (10th Cir. 1991). Put simply, a
motion to reconsider is appropriate when “the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s
position, or the controlling law.” Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. A motion to

reconsider “should be denied unless it clearly demonstrates manifest error of law or fact or
presents newly discovered evidence.” Nat’l Bus. Brokers, Ltd. v. Jim Williamson Products, Inc.,
115 F. Supp. 2d 1250, 1256 (D. Colo. 2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Seabron v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., Case No. 11–cv–01096–WJM–KMT, 2012 WL
3028224, at *1 (D. Colo. July 24, 2012).
In his motion, though it is clear Plaintiff disagrees with the Order entered by Senior
District Judge Babcock, Plaintiff fails to meet any of the standards to reconsider. Servants of the
Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to correct corrupt (illegal) ruling” (Doc. No. 13) is
DENIED.
Dated this 10th day of November, 2014.

2