Hancock v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 34 Motion to Vacate 24 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion for Ruling, Order on Motion for TRO. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 1/13/2015. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BRUCE A. HANCOCK, JR.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-14-1380-D

ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Vacate Judgment on Motion for Preliminary
Injunction Hearing and/or Ruling on Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 34], filed pro se by
Plaintiff Bruce A. Hancock, Jr. Citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), Plaintiff asks the Court to
reconsider the Order of January 6, 2015, which denied a preliminary injunction regarding a
state court foreclosure action against him.
Plaintiff’s reliance on Rule 60(b) is misplaced because the January 6 Order was not
a final judgment. However, a district court has inherent power to revise interlocutory orders
at any time before the entry of a final judgment. See Warren v. American Bankers Ins., 507
F.3d 1239, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007); Riggs v. Scrivner, Inc., 927 F.2d 1146, 1148 (10th Cir.
1991). The appropriate circumstances for revisiting issues previously decided in a case are
limited.
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. Thus, a motion for
reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts,
a party’s position, or the controlling law. It is not appropriate to revisit issues

already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior
briefing.
Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted); see
Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Devon Energy
Prod. Co. v. Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., 693 F.3d 1195, 1212 (10th Cir. 2012).
By the instant Motion, Plaintiff presents additional attacks on the judgment entered
in favor of the plaintiff in the mortgage foreclosure case, Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.
v. Hancock, Case No. CJ-2008-2068 (D.C. Okla. County, Okla. Aug. 9, 2009). Plaintiff does
not address the reasons why this Court denied his request for preliminary injunctive relief.
Therefore, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion under the applicable legal standards, the
Court finds no basis to grant relief from the January 6 Order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment on
Motion for Preliminary Injunction Hearing and/or Ruling on Preliminary Injunction [Doc.
No. 34] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of January, 2015.

2