Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-00760-ZLW.
July 27, 2006
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Plaintiff James Arlen Childs filed pro se on July 14, 2006, a letter to the clerk of the Court. In the letter, Mr. Childs apparently asks the Court to reconsider and vacate the Court's Order and Judgment of Dismissal filed on July 6, 2006. The Court must construe the letter liberally because Mr. Childs is proceeding pro se. 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 letter will be treated as a motion to reconsider, and the motion 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 (10th Cir. 1991). Mr. Childs filed the liberally construed motion to reconsider within ten days after the Order and Judgment of Dismissal. Therefore, the Court will consider the motion to reconsider pursuant to Rule 59(e). See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243.
The Court dismissed the complaint and the instant action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) as legally frivolous and malicious. The Court specifically determined that the claims Mr. Childs asserts in this action are repetitive of the claims asserted and pending in Childs v. Ortiz, No. 06-cv-00741-BNB (filed Apr. 19, 2006). The reasons for the dismissal are discussed in detail in the Order and Judgment of Dismissal filed on July 6, 2006.
Upon consideration of the liberally construed motion to reconsider and the entire file, the Court finds that Mr. Childs fails to demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider and vacate the order to dismiss this action. The three major grounds that justify reconsideration are: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Shields v. Shetler, 120 F.R.D. 123, 126 (D. Colo. 1988).
Mr. Childs does not allege the existence of any new law or evidence, and the Court remains convinced that the claims Mr. Childs asserts in this action are repetitive of the claims asserted and pending in No. 06-cv-00741-BNB. Therefore, the liberally construed motion to reconsider will be denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the letter to the clerk of the Court that Plaintiff James Arlen Childs filed pro se on July 14, 2006, and which the Court has treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), is denied.