Anthony v. City and County of Denver

Filing 225

ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(B) (ECF No. 224 ) is DENIED. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on January 21, 2021. (rvill, )

Case 1:16-cv-01223-RM-NYW Document 225 Filed 01/21/21 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 16-cv-01223-RM-NYW
THOMAS R. ANTHONY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER; and
ANTHONY SANDOVAL,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time Pursuant to
Rule 6(b)(1)(B) (the “Motion”) (ECF No. 224) seeking leave to file an objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 214) by January 26, 2021.1 Plaintiff argues the
Court “must accept [his] late filing.” The Court finds otherwise.
In reviewing Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court is mindful that “[a] pro se litigant’s pleadings
are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Nonetheless, the Tenth Circuit
“has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other
litigants.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005)
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
At issue is Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing extensions of time.
But Plaintiff has already previously requested an extension of time to object to the
1

The Court finds no response is required before ruling on the Motion. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d).

Case 1:16-cv-01223-RM-NYW Document 225 Filed 01/21/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3

Recommendation. (ECF No. 220.)2 And the first motion for extension was denied by Order dated
January 14, 2021. (ECF No. 222.) The Court will not entertain yet another motion on the matter,
especially since the Court has already ruled and accepted the Recommendation.
Nonetheless, because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court will also consider the Motion as
a request for reconsideration of the January 14, 2021 Order. “The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure recognize no motion for reconsideration.” Hawkins v. Evans, 64 F.3d 543, 546 (10th
Cir. 1995) (quotation marks and citation omitted). But “the court retains the power to alter
rulings until final judgment is entered on a cause.” Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Thompson
Theatres, Inc., 621 F.2d 1088, 1090 (10th Cir. 1980) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)); Spring Creek
Expl. & Prod. Co., LLC v. Hess Bakken Inv., II, LLC, 887 F.3d 1003, 1023-24 (10th Cir. 2018)
(district court with inherent power to reconsider its interlocutory rulings). Such motions,
however, may not “merely advance[] new arguments” or provide “supporting facts which were
available at the time of the original motion.” 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. The Court finds no grounds which warrant
reconsideration.
First, there has been no intervening change in controlling law. Next, Plaintiff provides no
new evidence previously unavailable. Third, the Court finds no need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice. As the Court previously stated, the Recommendation was timely
mailed to Plaintiff. Prior to the expiration of the time to object, Plaintiff had actual knowledge
that the Recommendation was issued and had directed a copy be sent to him; the docket entry

2

The rules governing extensions are not technical; Plaintiff has requested extensions of time on several occasions in
this case.
2

Case 1:16-cv-01223-RM-NYW Document 225 Filed 01/21/21 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3

specifically stated that “[c]opies mailed as ordered” (ECF No. 214); a copy was in fact mailed to
Plaintiff, as he ultimately conceded3; Plaintiff retrieved a copy himself off of PACER; and
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate the Recommendation. Moreover, the Court conducted a de
novo review of the Recommendation and found it accurately set forth the relevant factual and
procedural background and properly and correctly applied the law. The Court agreed with the
Recommendation, including the finding that Plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient reasons to
allow him to amend his complaint yet again. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(B)
(ECF No. 224) is DENIED.
DATED this 21st day of January, 2021.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

3

Plaintiff admitted the Recommendation was in fact mailed in his first Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No.
220), not in his Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 219) as the Court’s Order of January 14, 2021 (ECF No. 222, p. 2)
inadvertently stated.
3