United States District Court, D. Colorado
Michael E. Hegarty United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court is Plaintiff's “Motion, ” which has
been construed as a Motion Seeking Relief from a Final
Judgment or Order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) [filed
January 10, 2017; ECF No. 64]. For the following
reasons, the Court denies the motion.
initiated this action on November 27, 2015, stating three
claims against six Defendants and invoking the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments. ECF No. 1 at 5-22. After Plaintiff
failed to file an amended complaint as instructed during
initial review, Senior District Judge Babcock dismissed three
defendants, but allowed the Eighth Amendment claims against
Defendants Waite, Winslow, and Jones to proceed. ECF No. 12.
The parties consented to this Court's jurisdiction to
hear all matters in the case on May 26, 2016. ECF No. 45. The
Defendants, then, filed motions to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF Nos. 28, 47) and, on August 3,
2016, the Court granted these motions. ECF No. 57. More than
five months later, the Plaintiff filed the present motion.
case, the Court must construe the Plaintiff's motion for
relief liberally because Plaintiff is not represented by an
attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th
litigant subject to an adverse judgment, and who seeks
reconsideration by the district court of that adverse
judgment, may “file either a motion to alter or amend
the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or a motion
seeking relief from the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(b).” Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d
1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). A motion to reconsider filed
more than ten days after the final judgment should be
considered pursuant to Rule 60(b). Id.
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), the Supreme
Court held that Rule 60(b) “allows a party to seek
relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his
case, under a limited set of circumstances.”
Id. at 528. Under Rule 60(c), such a motion
“must be made within a reasonable time - and for
reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry
of the judgment or order or the date of the
proceeding.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c). Moreover, under Rule
60(b)(6), a movant must show “extraordinary
circumstances.” Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 535.
the Plaintiff does not specify which “reason” by
which he brings his motion under Rule 60(b). The Court finds
that reasons (1)-(5) do not apply; therefore, it will analyze
Plaintiff's motion as seeking relief from judgment under
rule does not permit a party to reargue issues by rehashing
facts and arguments already addressed or available, yet
neglected, in the original proceeding. See Servants of
Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000);
Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243
(10th Cir. 1991). Courts rarely grant Rule 60(b) motions,
deferring instead to the need for finality and the appeals
process. See Davis v. Kan. Dep't of Corrs., 507
F.3d 1246, 1248 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Parties seeking
relief under Rule 60(b) have a higher hurdle to overcome
because such a motion is not a substitute for an
appeal.”) (quoting Cummings v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 365 F.3d 944, 954 (10th Cir. 2004)).
the Court finds Plaintiff's motion is merely a
“re-hash” of the issues and arguments raised in
his briefing on the motion to dismiss. Specifically,
Plaintiff contends he is “not a diabetic” and,
thus, the Court's “ruling” that he “is
diabetic” is incorrect. Mot. 1-2.
the Court never “ruled” nor
“determined” Plaintiff to be diabetic. Plaintiff
argued in his written response to the motion to dismiss that
he was not being treated for diabetes and, thus, a
prescription of “Neurontin” was improper. Resp.
1-5, ECF No. 55. Consequently, in analyzing the subjective
component of Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim, the
Court noted what it found in the Complaint and documents
attached to it:
According to Plaintiff's own Complaint, Neurontin is used
to help control seizures, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and
nerve pain. See docket #1-1 at 1-6. The
(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 ...