United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER
RAYMOND P. MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court on the following matters:
(1) “Amendment to the Motion to Object” (ECF No.
56);
(2) “If the Following Motions Requires Petition or
Approval from the Court, let this Motion Serves as One/Such,
a Request for Motion for Entry of Judgment 55(b)”
(“Rule 55(b) Motion”) (ECF No. 57);[1]
(3) “If the Following Motions Requires Petition or
Approval from the Court, let this Motion Serves as One/Such,
a Request for Motion for Default Judgment 55(a)”
(“Rule 55(a) Motion”) (ECF No. 58);
(4) “If the Following Motions Requires Petition or
Approval from the Court, let this Motion Serves as One/Such,
a Request for Either, Motion 50(a)(1)(B); 60(b)(2); 59(a);
and Rule 36; 59(e)” (“Motion for Multiple
Relief”) (ECF No. 59);
(5) “Motion for Rule 50 Judgment as a Matter of Law in
a Jury Trial 50(a)(1)(B)” (“Rule 50
Motion”) (ECF No. 60);
(6) “Motion Requesting Admission Rule 36”
(“Rule 36 Motion”) (ECF No. 61);
(7) “Motion to Supplement the Record” (ECF No.
54); and
(8) “Affidavit not receiving orders” (ECF No.
64).
The
Court has considered these filings, the applicable law, the
court record in this case, and the Order (ECF No. 62) issued
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
abating Plaintiff's appeal pending this Court's
resolution of motions pending. Upon consideration of these
matters, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court
resolves the pending matters as follows.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
Based
on the date stamped on the eight pending motions/matters, six
(ECF Nos. 56-61) were received by the Clerk's Office
prior to or on the date of the entry of Final Judgment.
However, this Court did not receive these six matters for
consideration or order that they be docketed until after
Final Judgment had entered and an appeal had been filed. The
Tenth Circuit has now abated Plaintiff's appeal pending
this Court's “resolution of the pending
postjudgment motions.” (ECF No. 62, page 2.)
Accordingly, the Court will construe the six motions as
postjudgment motions under Fed. R. Civ. P 59(e) (motion to
alter or amend judgment).[2] And, under Rule 59(e), “relief is
available in limited circumstances, including ‘(1) an
intervening change in the controlling law, (2) when new
evidence previously was unavailable, and (3) the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.'” Hayes Family Tr. v. State Farm
Fire & Cas. Co., 845 F.3d 997, 1004 (10th Cir. 2017)
(brackets omitted) (quoting Servants of the Paraclete v.
Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)).
II.
THE PENDING “POSTJUDGMENT” MOTIONS
A.
The Amendment to the Motion to Object
Plaintiff
filed a Motion to Object (ECF No. 35), which the Court
considered in its Order of January 29, 2018 (ECF No. 38). In
that Order, the Court found the Motion to Object failed to
show that filing restrictions should not enter. The Court now
considers Plaintiff's Amendment to the Motion to Object,
which, although unclear, appears to argue that dismissal of
the case (or of the unserved defendants) was not appropriate,
and that default or judgment as a matter of law should enter.
Having now considered these additional arguments, most of
which appear to rely on matters which allegedly occurred in
other cases Plaintiff previously filed against the RTD, the
Court finds them insufficient to show any error in its
January 18 or 29, 2018 Order and resulting Final Judgment, or
any basis for granting relief.
B.
The ...