Martinez v. Chaumont et al

Filing 119

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 118 Motion of Objection for Case Closed. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/14/2017. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00345-CMA-STV
JOSE MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
K. NG CHAUMONT, RN,
RYAN WHITE, RN,
R. DUMIYE, RN, and
BRENDA HIGMAN (HIGMIN), LPN,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION OF OBJECTION FOR CASE CLOSED
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jose Martinez’s Motion of Objection
for Case Closed on July 17, 2017. (Doc. # 118.) On July 17, 2017, the Court granted
Defendants’ Motion to Summary Judgment (Doc. # 70) upon the Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak (Doc. # 86). (Doc. # 112.) The
Court’s July 17, 2017, Order terminated Plaintiff’s case. See (id. at 6.)
In the motion now before the Court, Plaintiff objects to the termination of his
case. (Doc. # 118 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that he attempted to contact the Court to
request a new trial date and to inform the Court of his whereabouts as he was
transferred between correctional facilities. (Id.) He claims that he was unable to do so
because correctional officers at the various facilities did not assist him and “pu[t] it on

the next person so they [didn’t] have to deal with it.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff requests the
Court “to give [him] a trial date with lawyer so [he] can plead his case.” (Id.)
Alternatively, Plaintiff asks “to verbally ask for appeal to higher court [sic].” (Id.)
Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, this Court must construe his pleadings
liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972). The Court therefore
construes the instant motion as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s July 17, 2017
Order. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly authorize a motion for
reconsideration. However, the Rules allow a litigant who was subject to an adverse
judgment to file a motion to change the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) or a motion
seeking relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). Van Skiver v. United States,
952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). The grounds warranting reconsideration are
limited and occur only in “exceptional situation[s].” Proctor & Gamble v. Haugen, 222
F.3d 1262, 1271 (10th Cir. 2000). “Absent extraordinary circumstances . . . the basis for
the second motion must not have been available at the time the first motion was filed.”
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). 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.” Id. “Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where
the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law.” Id. A
motion for reconsideration is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or
advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing. See Van Skiver, 952
F.2d at 1243.
2

Plaintiff fails to allege an “exceptional situation,” see Proctor & Gamble, 222 F.3d
at 1271, warranting reconsideration. Plaintiff does not argue “(1) an intervening change
in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, [or] (3) the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” See Servants of the Paraclete, 204
F.3d at 1012. Plaintiff merely reprises an argument the Court previously rejected: that
he should have the services of a lawyer and is entitled to a trial. See (Doc. ## 36, 44,
79, 112.) Because Plaintiff revisits issues already addressed, his motion for
reconsideration is DENIED. See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243.
In regard to Plaintiff’s alternative request “to verbally ask for appeal to higher
court [sic],” see (Doc. # 118 at 2), the Court does not have the authority to grant such a
request. Should Plaintiff wish to appeal the Court’s final order, the Court directs him to
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedures 3 and 4.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion of
Objection for Case Closed on July 17, 2017 (Doc. # 118) is DENIED.

DATED: December 14, 2017

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3