Pemberton v. Patton et al

Filing 96

ORDER denying 93 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying as moot 94 Motion for Judicial Notice. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 1/27/2016. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
PAUL CURTIS PEMBERTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT C. PATTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-129-D

ORDER
On April 29, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief From
Judgment, finding that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead any of the grounds for
relief provided under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. No.
92]. Plaintiff now moves the Court to reconsider its denial. Because Plaintiff
appears pro se, the Court liberally construes his motion. Mayfield v. Bethards, 826
F.3d 1252, 1255 (10th Cir. 2016).
“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.” Servant of Paraclete v.
Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Brumark Corp. v. Samson
Resources Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995)). “Thus, a motion for
reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a
party’s position, or the controlling law.” Id. (citation omitted). A motion for

reconsideration is an inappropriate vehicle “to reargue an issue previously
addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or
supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion.” Servants
of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012 (citation omitted).
Plaintiff’s motion does what Tenth Circuit precedent prohibits; he
repackages his prior arguments challenging the dismissal of his action and presents
additional arguments that could have been raised earlier. Plaintiff has presented no
grounds that warrant reconsideration of the subject order and the Court finds his
Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 93] should be DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion
for Judicial Notice [Doc. No. 94] is accordingly DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of January, 2017.

2