United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S NOVEMBER 19, 2018
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
WILLIAM J. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's November 19,
2018 Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion” or
“Motion for Reconsideration”; ECF No. 297.)
Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its order (ECF No.
289) denying Plaintiff's previous motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 288). For the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiff's Motion is denied.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
an inmate in Defendant's custody, is currently
incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary,
Administrative Maximum Facility (“ADX”). (ECF No.
90 at 3.) Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant on
April 27, 2015. (ECF No. 1.)
15, 2015, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's
complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 25.) On March 24, 2016, the
Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), but gave him the opportunity to seek leave to amend
his complaint. (ECF No. 50 at 17.) Plaintiff subsequently
amended his complaint on two different occasions. (ECF Nos.
63 & 90.)
August 29, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
operative complaint (“Second Motion to Dismiss”)
pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). (ECF No.
98.) The Court granted the motion in part (the
“Order”) and dismissed all of Plaintiff's
claims except for one, a Religious Freedom Restoration Act
(“RFRA”) claim against Defendant. (ECF No. 144 at
March 30, 2018, Defendant filed a third motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 41(b), seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's
sole remaining claim. While this motion was pending,
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, asking the
Court to reconsider its Order that had granted in part
Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 288.) The
Court denied that motion as it failed to state any ground
that warranted reconsideration. (ECF No. 289.)
November 16, 2018, the Court granted Defendant's third
motion to dismiss, dismissed Plaintiff's only remaining
claim, and terminated this action. (ECF No. 295.) Final
judgment in favor of Defendant was entered that same day.
(ECF No. 296.) On November 19, 2018, the Clerk of Court
docketed Plaintiff's instant Motion, requesting the Court
to reconsider its order denying Plaintiff's previous
motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 297.) Plaintiff
apparently mailed this motion from prison on November 14,
2018 (see Id. at 13), before the Court had dismissed
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide
for motions for reconsideration. Hatfield v. Bd. of Cnty.
Comm'rs for Converse Cnty., 52 F.3d 858, 861 (10th
Cir. 1995). Where, after judgment has entered in a case, a
party files a motion for reconsideration, courts generally
construe such a motion as invoking Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). Id.
other hand, where a party files a motion for reconsideration,
prior to the entry of judgment, Rules 59(e) and 60(b) do not
apply. Houston Fearless Corp. v. Teter, 313 F.2d 91,
92 (10th Cir. 1962). Instead, the motion falls within a
court's plenary power to revisit and amend interlocutory
orders as justice requires. See Paramount Pictures Corp.
v. Thompson Theatres, Inc., 621 F.2d 1088, 1090 (10th
Cir. 1980) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)); see also Houston
Fearless Corp., 313 F.2d at 92. The Court finds
Plaintiff's November 19, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration
to fall within this category, because even though it was
filed after judgment was entered on November 16, Plaintiff
deposited the Motion in the prison's internal mail system
on November 14. (ECF No. 297 at 14.) See Price v.
Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (10th Cir. 2005)
(discussing prison mailbox rule).
motion for reconsideration is appropriate where there is
“(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2)
new evidence previously unavailable, [or] (3) the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005,
1012 (10th Cir. 2000). “Thus, a motion for
reconsideration is appropriate where the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the
controlling law.” Id.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, do not offer an
opportunity for a party to reargue its case after the court
has rendered a decision. Id. (holding that a party
moving to reconsider a prior ruling should not “revisit
issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have
been raised in prior briefing”); see also All W.
Pet Supply Co. v. Hill's Pet Prods. Div., 847
F.Supp. 858, 860 (D. Kan. 1994) (“A motion to
reconsider or to alter or amend may not be used as a vehicle
for the losing party to rehash arguments previously
considered and rejected by the district court.”). The
Court, however, is mindful of Plaintiff's pro se
status, and accordingly, construes his Motion for
Reconsideration liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).