McKinney v. Colorado Department of Corrections et al
MINUTE ORDER denying 33 Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/11/2016. (emill)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02269-MJW
KEVIN L. MCKINNEY,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
(Docket No. 33) is DENIED. As the Tenth Circuit has explained:
Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider 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. Thus,
a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law. It is
not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments
that could have been raised in prior briefing.
Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal citations
omitted). Here, Plaintiff has identified no changes in the law or facts, nor anything
about his pleadings that the Court has misapprehended. Although Plaintiff correctly
states a number of points of law in his motion, none of them speak to the relevant
question: whether CDOC’s policy on reducible inguinal hernias violates the Eighth
Amendment. As the Court’s order (Docket No. 31) explained, based on the facts as
alleged by Plaintiff, both CDOC’s policy and its treatment of Plaintiff’s hernia are
constitutionally adequate as a matter of law. If Plaintiff believes the Court is in error,
Plaintiff’s remedy is to appeal to the Tenth Circuit.
Date: April 11, 2016
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?