United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL
JUDGMENT.
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge.
This
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Relief from the Final Judgment and for Reconsideration of the
Final Judgment. (Doc. # 25.) Because Plaintiff does not
establish exception circumstances that warrant vacating the
Court's Order and Final Judgment (Doc. ## 23, 24)
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b),
Plaintiff's Motion for Relief and Reconsideration is
denied.
I.
BACKGROUND
The
Court's previous Order Affirming and Adopting the October
5, 2017 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nina
Y. Wang (Doc. # 23) and the underlying Recommendation (Doc. #
21) provide detailed recitations of the factual and
procedural background of this dispute and are incorporated
herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Accordingly, this Order
will reiterate only what is necessary to address
Plaintiff's Motion for Relief and Reconsideration. On
October 31, 2017, the Court issued its Order Affirming and
Adopting the October 5, 2017 Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Nina Y. Wang and ordered that Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint (Doc. # 12) was dismissed without prejudice. (Doc.
# 23 at 10.) The Court concluded that it did not have subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Younger
abstention doctrine. (Id. at 6-9.) Accordingly, the
Court was required to dismiss Plaintiff's case against
Defendants. (Id. at 9.) The Court's Order
terminated the case, and the Clerk of the Court entered Final
Judgment against Plaintiff.[1] (Doc. # 24.)
Again
proceeding pro se, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
Relief and Reconsideration pursuant Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b) on November 3, 2017. (Doc. # 25.) Plaintiff
briefly asserts that relief is warranted because the Court
“missed the fact that there are federal statutes, which
make applicability of [Sperry v. State of Fla. Ex rel.
Fla. Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963)] binding for this
matter.” (Id. at 4.) Defendants timely
responded on November 22, 2017 and argue that Plaintiff's
Motion for Relief and Reconsideration is “defective on
both procedural and substantive grounds, requiring
denial.” (Doc. # 27.) Plaintiff replied on November 22,
2017, briefly clarifying his argument in light of
Defendants' response brief. (Doc. # 28.)
II.
LEGAL STANDARD FOR RULE 60(B) RELIEF
Plaintiff
moves for relief from the Court's Order pursuant to Rule
60(b).[2] (Doc. # 25 at 1.) Relief under Rule 60(b)
“is extraordinary and may only be granted in
exceptional circumstances.” Bud Brooks Trucking,
Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Co., Inc., 909 F.2d 1437,
1440 (10th Cir. 1990). A litigant shows exceptional
circumstances by satisfying one or more of Rule 60(b)'s
six grounds for relief from judgment. Van Skiver,
952 F.2d at 1243-44. These six grounds are:
(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 ...