United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND THE COURT'S JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE
59(E)
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The
matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Reed Kirk
McDonald's Motion to Alter or Amend the Court's
Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
(the “Motion to Alter Judgment”). (Doc. # 89.)
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court denies
Plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment.
I.
BACKGROUND
The
Court detailed the factual background of this case in its
Order Affirming the December 12, 2018 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter and Granting
Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. # 81.) The Court's previous
Order is incorporated by reference, and the details explained
therein need not be repeated here. The Court recounts only
the facts necessary to address Plaintiff's Motion to
Alter Judgment.
In its
previous Order, issued March 6, 2019, this Court dismissed
with prejudice all of Plaintiff's claims against the two
Defendants, Defendant Eagle County and Defendant Bellco
Credit Union (“Defendant Bellco”), and affirmed
and adopted Magistrate Judge Neureiter's Recommendation
on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 67). (Doc. #
81.) First, in reviewing the portions of Magistrate Judge
Neureiter's analysis to which Plaintiff did
not object, see (Doc. # 77), this
Court found no clear error.[1] (Doc. # 81 at 10.) The Court then
conducted a de novo review of the portions of the
Recommendation to which Plaintiff unambiguously objected.
(Id.) As to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant
Eagle County, the Court concluded that dismissal was
appropriate under Rule 12(b)(1) because the Court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine and under to Rule 12(b)(6)
because Plaintiff failed to allege claims against Defendant
Eagle County. (Id. at 10-14.) With respect to
Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Bellco, the Court
determined that the Younger abstention doctrine
required it to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the
claims and that Defendant Bellco was not properly joined in
this action. (Id. at 14-18.) The Court also affirmed
that dismissal of all claims with prejudice was appropriate
because further amendment of Plaintiff's Complaint would
be futile. (Id. at 18-19.) In light of the
Court's March 6, 2019 Order, the Clerk of the Court
entered Final Judgment in favor of Defendants and against
Plaintiff. (Doc. # 82.) Soon thereafter, Defendants
separately filed motions for attorneys' fees. (Doc. ##
83, 89.) Plaintiff has not filed responses to these motions
for attorneys' fees. The Court will rule on
Defendants' requests for awards of attorneys' fees in
due time.
On
March 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Alter Judgment
presently before the Court. (Doc. # 89.) Defendant Bellco
filed its Response on April 5, 2019 (Doc. # 91), to which
Plaintiff replied on April 15, 2019 (Doc. # 93.) Defendant
Eagle County responded on April 15, 2019 (Doc. # 92), and
Plaintiff replied to Defendant Eagle County on April 24, 2019
(Doc. # 94). Plaintiff's two Reply briefs are virtually
identical to one another.
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A.
PRO SE PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff
proceeds pro se. The Court, therefore, reviews his
pleading “liberally and hold[s] [it] to a less
stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”
Trackwell v. United States, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243
(10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). However, a pro
se litigant's “conclusory allegations without
supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a
claim upon which relief can be based.” Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). A court
may not assume that a plaintiff can prove facts that have not
been alleged, or that a defendant has violated laws in ways
that a plaintiff has not alleged. Associated Gen.
Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of
Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983); see also
Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir.
1997) (a court may not “supply additional factual
allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint”);
Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1159
(10th Cir. 1991) (a court may not “construct arguments
or theories for the plaintiff in the absence of any
discussion of those issues”). Nor does pro se
status entitle a litigant to an application of different
rules. See Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 957 (10th
Cir. 2002).
B.
RULE 59(e)
Plaintiff
“asks this Court to reverse its judgment”
pursuant to Rule 59(e). (Doc. # 93 at 1.) Rule 59(e) provides
that no later than 28 days after the entry of a judgment, a
party may file a motion “to alter or amend” the
judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). “The ‘narrow
aim' of Rule 59(e) is ‘to make clear that the
district court possesses the power to rectify its own
mistakes in the period immediately following the entry of
judgment.'” Greene v. Town of Blooming
Grove, 935 F.2d 507, 512 (2d. Cir. 1991) (quoting
White v. N.H. Dep't of Emp't Security, 455 U.S.
445, 451 (1982)). “The granting of a motion to alter or
amend is an extraordinary remedy which is used sparingly in
order to further the strong public policy interest in
finalizing litigation and conserving judicial
resources.” Sala v. United States, 251 F.R.D.
614, 619 (D. Colo. 2008) (quoting Torre v. Federated Mut.
Ins. Co., 906 F.Supp. 616, 619 (D. Kan. 1995)).
Accordingly, “[m]otions to alter or amend judgment are
regarded with disfavor.” Kerber v. Qwest Group Life
Ins. Plan, 727 F.Supp.2d 1076, 1077 (D. Colo. 2010)
(citing Mellon v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 64 F.Supp.2d
1061, 1063 (D. Kan. 1999)).
The
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recognizes three basic
grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted:
“(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)
(quoting Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d
1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)). A Rule 59(e) motion is not an
appropriate vehicle “to revisit issues already
addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in
prior briefing.” Servants of the Paraclete,
204 F.3d at 1012 (citing Van Skiver v. United
States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991)). “In
addition, ‘arguments raised for the first time in a
motion for reconsideration are not properly before the Court
and generally need not be addressed.” Sump v.
Fingerhut, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 324, 327 (D. Kan. 2002)
(quoting United States v. Castillo-Garcias, 117 F.3d
1179, 1197 (10th Cir. 2007)). Courts do not relax these
standards for pro se litigations. See,
e.g., Gibson v. Zavaras, No. 08-cv-02328,
WYD-KLM, 2010 WL 3928012, *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 6, 2016) (denying
a pro se plaintiff's motion for relief under
Rule 59(e) where the plaintiff “simply rehash[ed]
arguments that were previously rejected.”).
III.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff
fails to assert under which of the three grounds upon which a
Rule 59(e) may be granted he seeks to challenge the
Court's March 6, 2019 Order dismissing his case with
prejudice. See generally (Doc. # 89.) Because
Plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment does not contain any
arguments about a change in controlling law subsequent to the
Court's Order and does not seek to introduce
previously-unavailable evidence, the Court limits its
analysis of the Motion to Alter Judgment to the third grounds
for Plaintiff's requested relief-“the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”
See Hayes Family Tr., 845 F.3d at 1004. Relief is
appropriate on these grounds “where the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the
controlling law.” Servants of the Paraclete,
204 F.3d at 1012. Plaintiff does not identify material facts
that the Court misapprehended, nor does he contend that the
Court misapprehended his or either Defendant's positions.
Reviewing Plaintiff's jumbled Motion to Alter Judgment
liberally, the Court's understanding is that Plaintiff
believes the Court misapplied the controlling law in its
March 6, 2019 Order. However, Plaintiff largely rehashes
arguments that were previously ...