Opinion
Civil Case No. 10-cv-01118-REB-KMT
01-10-2012
THERESA L. DOWLING, Plaintiff, v. STURGEON ELECTRIC, WILLIAM LONG, and WILLIAM FREDRICKS, Defendants.
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR POST-JUDGMENT RELIEF
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on two motions filed by the plaintiff, which motions are captioned as follows: (1) Motion for Relief From Judgment [#232] filed December 19, 2011; and (2) Motion To Vacate Judgment for Want of Prosecution [#233] filed December 19, 2011. The defendants filed a response [#237] to the motion to vacate judgment. I deny both motions.
"[#232]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
The plaintiff is acting pro se. Therefore, I have construed her filings generously and with the leniency due pro se litigants. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). Reading the plaintiff's two motions generously, I construe them as motions for post-judgment relief under FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) or 60(b).
Generally, the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the issues on appeal. Lancaster v. Independent School Dist. No. 5, 149 F.3d 1228, 1237 (10th Cir. 1998). However, in limited circumstances a district court may deny a motion under Rules 59(e) or 60(b) on the merits even after the filing of a notice of appeal. Warren v. American Bankers Ins. of Florida, 507 F.3d 1239, 1244 (10th Cir. 2007) (Rule 59(e) motion); W.N.J. v. Yocom, 257 F.3d 1171, 1172 - 73 n. 1 (10th Cir. 2001); Aldrich Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., 938 F.2d 1134, 1143 (10th Cir.1991) (60(b)(2) motion).
"(A) Rule 59(e) motion is normally granted only to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence." Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 854 (10th Cir.2005) (internal quotation omitted). In her present motions, the plaintiff has demonstrated neither a manifest error of law nor the need to present newly discovered evidence.
Rule 60(b) lists six bases on which a party may seek relief from a final judgment. Having considered the plaintiff's motions, I find that she has not cited or circumstantiated any valid grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the plaintiff's Motion for Relief From Judgment [#232] filed December 19, 2011, is DENIED; and
2. That the plaintiff's Motion To Vacate Judgment for Want of Prosecution [#233] filed December 19, 2011, is DENIED.
Dated January 10, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
_________________
Robert E. Blackburn
United States District Judge