RAHMAN EX REL. ELGABROWNY v. DIRECTOR OF BOP HARLEY G. LAPPIN

Full title: OMAR ABDEL RAHMAN, ex rel. IBRAHIM ELGABROWNY, Applicant, v. DIRECTOR OF…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Oct 12, 2005

Civil Action No. 05-cv-01551-ZLW (D. Colo. Oct. 12, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-cv-01551-ZLW.

October 12, 2005

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

ZITA WEINSHIENK, Senior District Judge

Applicant Omar Abdel Rahman, by his next friend Ibrahim Elgabrowny, has filed pro se on October 3, 2005, a "Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Without Prejudice." Applicant asks the Court to reconsider the Court's Order and Judgment of Dismissal filed in this action on September 22, 2005. The Court must construe the motion liberally because Applicant 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 (10^th Cir. 1991). For the reasons stated below, the motion to reconsider will be denied.

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 (10^th Cir. 1991). Applicant filed the motion to reconsider within ten days after the Order and Judgment of Dismissal was entered. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a) (time periods of less than eleven days exclude intervening Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays). Therefore, the Court will consider the motion to reconsider pursuant to Rule 59(e). See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243.

Upon consideration of the motion to reconsider and the entire file, the Court finds that Applicant fails to demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider and vacate the order to dismiss this action. The Court dismissed the instant action without prejudice because Applicant failed to cure certain deficiencies within the time allowed. Applicant alleges in the motion to reconsider that he never received a copy of the order directing him to cure the deficiencies. The Court notes that the copy of the order that was mailed to Applicant at the address he provided was not returned to the Court undelivered. Therefore, the motion to reconsider will be denied. However, Applicant is reminded that the instant action was dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, if he wishes to pursue his claims, he may do so by filing a new action. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the "Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Without Prejudice" filed on October 3, 2005, is denied.