Faircloth v. Hickenlooper et al

Filing 166

ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Ruling in FRCP 60 Motion (ECF No. 165 ) is DENIED. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 01/03/2020. (rvill, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 16-cv-02929-RM-STV
JAMES FAIRCLOTH,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN HICKENLOOPER,
RICK RAEMISCH,
SUSAN TIONA,
JULIE RUSSELL,
BRIAN HOFFMAN,
MARK WEINPAHL,
GISELA WALKER,
HELENE CHRISTNER,
CORRECTIONS HEALTH PARTNERS, INC. (CHP),
DAVIS BOOTH,
CABLING,
JUDY BREZENDINE, and
RENAE JORDAN,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s
Ruling in FRCP 60 Motion” (the “Motion”) (ECF No. 165) seeking relief in this case - again.
Upon consideration of the Motion, the court record, and the applicable rules and case law, and
being otherwise fully advised, the Motion is DENIED.

I.

BACKGROUND
The parties are well versed with the background, so it will not be repeated here. The

bottom line is this: Plaintiff sought relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 from an order of dismissal,
which this Court denied and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Thereafter, this Court also denied
Plaintiff’s request for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the
Court’s order of denial of his Rule 60 motion.
II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff appears pro se so the Court construes his filings liberally. Trackwell v. United

States Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007). Nonetheless, Plaintiff must comply with the
applicable rules and the Court does not act as his advocate. See Requena v. Roberts, 893 F.3d
1195, 1205 (10th Cir. 2018).
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion and even assuming, arguendo, this
successive post-judgment motion and the additional arguments may be permitted under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds no relief is warranted under any standard. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 & 60. For example, the Court is well aware Plaintiff filed a motion for review
of his case as it denied that motion by order dated April 3, 2018. (ECF Nos. 141, 145.) As for
any argument of the denial of due process, the Court finds Plaintiff received any process he may
have been due in this case. Further, the Court finds no legal or factual basis to support the
contention it should have sua sponte put this case on an indefinite hold to see if Plaintiff would
have been “re-found or captured or turn[ed] himself in” after he escaped. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1
(The federal rules of civil procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the

2

court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action
and proceeding.”) In summary, Plaintiff fails to show any relief can and may be had.
III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of the

Court’s Ruling in FRCP 60 Motion” (ECF No. 165) is DENIED.
DATED this 3rd day of January, 2020.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

3