Leon v. Robinson et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying the letters 11 and 12 by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 11/4/14.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-02288-LTB
[RAUL LEÓN],
Plaintiff,
v.
[ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General],
[TODD ROBINSON, Assistant U.S. Attorney],
[KATIE HARDING, F.B.I. Agent, and]
[ALLEN VALKLOSKY, F.B.I. Agent],
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Plaintiff, Raul León, is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons
at the United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum, in Florence, Colorado. He
filed pro se on October 16, 2014, a letter (ECF No. 11) and on October 30, 2014, a
letter and attached second amended Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 12), asking the
Court to reconsider and vacate the Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 9) and the Judgment
(ECF No. 10) entered in this action on October 2, 2014.
The Court must construe the filings liberally because Mr. León 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 letters 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.
A litigant subject to an adverse judgment 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 motions pursuant to Rule 59(e) because they were 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 Mr. León’s amended Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 7) and
the instant action without prejudice because Mr. León failed to file an amended Prisoner
Complaint as directed in the order of August 25, 2014 (ECF No. 4). Magistrate Judge
Boland warned Mr. León that failure to comply with the August 25 order may result in
the dismissal of the instant action. See ECF No. 4 at 6. The October 2 dismissal order
notes that the amended Prisoner Complaint is not on the Court-approved form as
directed in the August 25 order, is missing a caption listing all parties as required by
2

Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8 as directed in the August 25 order. After review of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion
and the entire file, the Court finds that Mr. Lee fails to demonstrate some reason why
the Court should reconsider and vacate the order to dismiss this action. Therefore, the
motion, as amended, will be denied.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the letters that Plaintiff, Raul León filed on October 16 and 30,
2014 (ECF Nos. 11 and 12), asking the Court to reconsider and vacate the Order of
Dismissal (ECF No. 9) and the Judgment (ECF No. 10), 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

4th day of

November

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

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

3