Cosey v. USA
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 11 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 09/07/2011. (tls)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 2:11-CV-104 TS
Petitioner moves to reconsider the Court’s order denying his Motion for Summary
Judgment and granting him an extension of time to file a Reply. He argues that the
government did not timely serve him with copies of a filing and, therefore, summary
judgment should be entered as a sanction. This argument revisits Petitioner’s previous
argument that summary judgment should be granted against the United States for its
failure to timely serve him with a response and file a certificate of service.
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. It is not appropriate
to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have
been raised in prior briefing.1
The Court has previously addressed Petitioner’s arguments.2
His attempt to
revisiting those issues does not state grounds for reconsideration. It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 11) is
DATED September 7, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
United States District Judge
Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Van
Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991)).
See Docket No. 10 at 2 (finding that “any prejudice to Petitioner from not timely
receiving a copy of the government’s Response can be cured by granting his request
for an extension of time in which to file a Reply”) and 2-3 (finding Petitioner has not
shown he is entitled to summary judgement).
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?