Williams v. Denham

Filing 14

ORDER denying 13 Rule 60(B)(1) Excusable Neglect Motion by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 11/10/14.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-02158-LTB
SHIROCCO MARQUISE WILLIAMS, sui juris,
Applicant,
v.
DEBORAH DENHAM, Warden, FCI Englewood,
Respondent.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Applicant, Shirocco Marquise Williams, is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons who currently is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at
Englewood, located in Littleton, Colorado. He filed pro se on October 21, 2014, a
motion titled “Rule 60(B)(1) Excusable Neglect Motion” (ECF No. 13). The Court must
construe the motion liberally because Mr. Williams 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 the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and denied.
In the motion, Mr. Williams apparently asks the Court to reconsider and vacate
the Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 11) and the Judgment (ECF No. 12) entered in this
action on October 9, 2014. 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).
The Court will consider the 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.
The Court denied the habeas corpus application and dismissed the instant action
without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Upon consideration of
the motion and the entire file, the Court finds that Mr. Gordon fails to demonstrate some
reason why the Court should reconsider and vacate the order to dismiss this action.
Therefore, the motion will be denied.
Accordingly, it is

2

ORDERED that the motion titled “Rule 60(B)(1) Excusable Neglect Motion” (ECF
No. 13) that Applicant, Shirocco Marquise Williams, filed on October 21, 2014, and
which the Court has treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), is denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 10th day of

November

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

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

3