Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hodson v. Kroll

United States District Court, D. Colorado

September 21, 2017

TRAVIS HODSON, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY KROLL, MATTHEW ELBE, BRANDON WILLIAMS, ROBYN JUBA, STEVE REAMS, UNKNOWN DEPUTY A, and UNKNOWN DEPUTIES, Defendants.

          ORDER

          MICHAEL E. HEGARTY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         On July 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 motion.

         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.

         In this 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 Cir. 1991).

         A 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).

         Rule 60(b) provides:

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; or
(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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.