Morehead v. Douglas County Courts et al

Filing 37

ORDER. ORDERED that Applicant's Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of Court's Order On Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus 36 is denied. Signed by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/03/15.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02920-PAB
PAUL MOREHEAD,
Applicant,
v.
THE DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO, COUNTY COURT, and
CYNTHIA H. COFFMAN, Attorney General, State of Colorado,
Respondents.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on “Applicant’s Motion for Reconsideration
Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of Court’s Order On
Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus” [Docket No. 36]. The motion will be denied.
The Court construes the motion for reconsideration as a motion to alter or
amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
because the motion was filed within twenty-eight days after the Final Judgment [Docket
No. 35] was entered in this action. See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241,
1243 (10th Cir. 1991). The purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion is “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). “Grounds for granting a Rule
59(e) motion include ‘(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence
previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.’” Somerlott v. Cherokee Nation Distributors, Inc., 686 F.3d 1144, 1153 (10th

Cir. 2012) (quoting Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.
2000)).
Applicant asks the Court to reconsider the Court’s Order on Application f or Writ
of Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 34]. In that order, the Court addressed the m erits of the
claim that Applicant’s constitutional right to due process was violated because the state
suppressed evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). The
Court determined Applicant was not entitled to habeas corpus relief with respect to the
suppressed evidence claim pursuant to the deferential standards of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d) because the state court’s conclusion that the ev idence in question was not
material is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal
law.
In the motion to reconsider, Applicant contends that the Court misapplied clearly
established federal law, apparently because the Court did not address the claim as a
Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause claim. However, Applicant did not raise a Sixth
Amendment claim in the amended habeas corpus application. Therefore, upon
consideration of the motion to reconsider and the entire file, the Court finds that
Applicant fails to demonstrate any reason why the Court should reconsider and vacate
the order dismissing this action. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Applicant’s Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule
59(1)(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of Court’s Order On Application For Writ Of
Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 36] is denied.

2

DATED December 3, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

3