Larson v. Hansen Construction Inc

Filing 42

ORDER. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 41 ), and this case remains CLOSED. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on November 12, 2020. (rvill, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 19-cv-02750-RM-GPG
JODI LARSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
HANSEN CONSTRUCTION INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Final judgment in this employment discrimination case was entered in Defendant’s favor
on August 28, 2020, when this Court entered an order accepting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation to dismiss this case because Plaintiff failed to timely file a charge of
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Before the Court is
Plaintiff’s post-judgment motion objecting to that order. (ECF No. 41.)
The Court construes Plaintiff’s pleading as a motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
or 60(b). 1 Grounds for granting relief under Rule 59(e) 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. Monge v. RG Petro-Mach. (Grp.) Co., 701 F.3d 598, 611 (10th
Cir. 2012). But a Rule 59(e) motion “cannot be used to expand a judgment to encompass new

Plaintiff proceeds pro se; thus, the Court construes her pleadings liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972). However, the Court cannot act as Plaintiff’s advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
1991).
1

issues which could have been raised prior to issuance of the judgment.” Sprint Nextel Corp. v.
Middle Man, Inc., 822 F.3d 524, 536 (10th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted). Grounds for granting
relief under Rule 60(b) are:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on
an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment is an extraordinary remedy
and may be granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Jackson v. Los Lunas Cmty. Program,
880 F.3d 1176, 1191-92 (10th Cir. 2018).
Plaintiff’s motion fails to establish any of the grounds for relief stated above. She does
not argue there has been any intervening change in the controlling law or offer new evidence that
was previously unavailable. Nor has she shown a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice. Although she repeatedly refers to an April 2019 charge filing date, she identifies no
evidence to support it. Nor has she articulated a coherent basis for relief under Rule 60(b).
Instead, large portions of her rambling and disjointed motion are devoted to making
unsubstantiated allegations of “tax preparer fraud” against her former employer. (See ECF
No. 41 at 6.) There are also numerous references to “digital twin computing,” a concept that is
2

unexplained. (See id. at 1.) Elsewhere, the pleading poses questions that the Court is simply at a
loss to answer, such as “[i]s our government being taken over by Aspen?” (Id. at 2.) In any
event, to the extent the motion discusses the underlying lawsuit based on her allegedly unlawful
termination, the Court discerns no grounds for reconsidering, altering, or amending its prior
order.
Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 41), and this case remains
CLOSED.
DATED this 12th day of November, 2020.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

3