United States District Court, D. Colorado
MICHAEL E. HEGARTY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
21, 2017, this Court issued an order dismissing this civil
rights action without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure
to prosecute his claims. ECF No. 62. Ten days later,
Plaintiff filed a “Motion [for] Relief [from]
Judgment.” Plaintiff fails to demonstrate sufficient
cause justifying relief; accordingly, the Court will deny the
facts and procedural history of this case are set forth in
this Court's July 21, 2017 order and, thus, need not be
repeated here. See ECF No. 62. The Court dismissed
this case after the Plaintiff failed to comply with Court
orders and to respond to the Court's order to show cause.
See Id. Here, Plaintiff argues the Court should
“overturn the dismissal due to excusable neglect”
in that Plaintiff was “on a writ to the Colorado Mental
Health Institute at Pueblo.” Mot., ECF No. 66.
Plaintiff claims he “didn't notify the court,
because the last time [he] did on May 11, 2016, it was at
risk for dismissal as moot.” Id. He also
states, “The court was already advised of my condition,
and I didn't think it was necessary because I was asked
if I was getting my mail, so I didn't notify the court of
an address change.” Id.
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). Although courts typically
differentiate a Rule 59 motion from a Rule 60 motion by the
number of days after a judgment when the motion is filed
(see id.), the Plaintiff specifies here that he
seeks “relief from judgment” based on
“excusable neglect”; thus, the Court will
adjudicate the motion pursuant to Rule 60(b).
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or
its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(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 prospectively is no longer equitable;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In 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 ...