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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?