Adams v. Berkebile

Full title: ERIC ADAMS, Applicant, v. D. BERKEBILE, Warden, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Aug 19, 2014

Civil Action No. 13-cv-02001-LTB (D. Colo. Aug. 19, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 13-cv-02001-LTB

08-19-2014

ERIC ADAMS, Applicant, v. D. BERKEBILE, Warden, Respondent.

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge United States District Court

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Pending is the Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) filed pro se by Applicant on August 15, 2014. Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order of Dismissal entered on November 4, 2013. The Court must construe the Motion liberally because Applicant is a pro se litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the Motion.

Relief under Rule 60(b) is appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances. See Massengale v. Oklahoma Bd. of Examiners in Optometry, 30 F.3d 1325, 1330 (10th Cir. 1994). Upon consideration of the Motion and the entire file, the Court finds that Applicant fails to demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider and vacate the November 4, 2013 Order of Dismissal. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), ECF No. 20, is denied.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 19^th day of August, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court