Nelson v. Rocky Mountain Radiology et al

Filing 180

Minute ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 31 March 2021. This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration to Motion #155 filed March 25, 2021. 179 . Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:(1) Plaintiff's Motion 179 is DENIED; (2) Plaintiff's case manager shall ensure Plaintiff's participation in the April 6, 2021 Telephonic Status Conference by contacting the court at 888.363.4749, Access Code: 5738976# at 2:00 p.m.(cmadr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 19-cv-02183-NYW
CHRISTOPHER NELSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
KENDRA HOUGE,
CHANTEL LOTMAN,
TABATHA TENNANT,
TRISHA KAUTZ,
DANIELLE GOSSETT,
FRANCIS SAGEL,
JIMMY CARDINELLI,
GAIL VORIS,
JEREMY ROMERO,
JAYNE SCARFF,
MISTI COLGIN, and
CINDY CARDINELLI,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered By Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration to Motion
#155 (or “Motion”), filed March 25, 2021. [#179]. In the Motion, Plaintiff requests that the court
reconsider its Minute Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Fair Process [#155]. See generally
[id.]. For the following reasons, I DENY the Motion.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly contemplate motions for
reconsideration. Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1167 n.9 (10th Cir. 2005). Yet, courts retain
discretion to consider their interlocutory orders at any time prior to entry of final judgment. See
Fye v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm’n, 516 F.3d 1217, 1224 n.2 (10th Cir. 2008); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Though the court is not bound by the stricter standards set forth in Rules 59(e) or 60(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for such motions, the court may utilize those standards in
evaluating a motion for reconsideration. See Trujillo v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Sch.,
212 F. App’x 760, 765 (10th Cir. 2007). Generally, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate
only if there is (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) new evidence that was previously
unavailable, or (3) a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Hayes Family Tr. v.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 845 F.3d 997, 1004 (10th Cir. 2017); accord Nelson v. City of

Albuquerque, 921 F.3d 925, 929 (10th Cir. 2019) (explaining that motions for reconsideration are
appropriate when the court misapprehends the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law).
Motions for reconsideration, however, are not an appropriate tool for revisiting issues already
addressed or for asserting arguments that the movant could have asserted earlier but did not.
Castanon v. Cathey, 976 F.3d 1136, 1141 (10th Cir. 2020).
Upon review of the Motion, the court concludes that reconsideration of its Minute Order
denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Fair Process [#155] is not warranted. Plaintiff points to no
intervening change in controlling law, new evidence previously unavailable, or the need to prevent
manifest injustice. Rather, Plaintiff raises issues already addressed by the court or issues that he
could have raised initially—neither warrants reconsideration. Castanon, 976 F.3d at 1141.
Further, Plaintiff is reminded of the upcoming Telephonic Status Conference set for April
6, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., at which Plaintiff will have an opportunity to speak with potential pro bono
counsel. Plaintiff shall present this Minute Order to the appropriate personnel at Sterling
Correctional Facility to ensure his participation.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion [#179] is DENIED;

(2)
Plaintiff’s case manager shall ensure Plaintiff’s participation in the April 6,
2021 Telephonic Status Conference by contacting the court at 888.363.4749, Access
Code: 5738976# at 2:00 p.m.
(3)

A copy of this Minute Order is to be sent to the following:
Case Manager for Christopher Nelson #148017
Sterling Correctional Facility (SCF)
P.O. Box 6000
Sterling, CO 80751, and
Christopher Nelson #148017
Sterling Correctional Facility (SCF)
P.O. Box 6000
Sterling, CO 80751

DATED: March 31, 2021

2