Opinion
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00880-KLM
12-08-2014
RONALD JENNINGS FOGLE, Plaintiff, v. JOHN PALOMINO, in his individual and official capacities as former CCCF investigator, Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Dated 11/07/14 [#48] (the "Motion to Reconsider"). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion to Reconsider [#48].
"[#48]" 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.
This case was assigned to the undersigned on April 25, 2014, for all purposes pursuant to the Court's Pilot Program and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). [#13].
--------
I. Background
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order [#43] on Plaintiff's Inquiry for Permission to File and Amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [#36] (the "Motion to Amend"). On August 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Joinder of Defendants [#35] (the "Motion for Joinder"). In the Motion for Joinder [#35], Plaintiff sought to join six defendants, in addition to Defendant John Palomino, to the lawsuit. On September 10, 2014, Defendant filed a Response [#37] to Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder [#35]. In the Response [#37], Defendant noted that Plaintiff did not include a proposed amended complaint with the Motion for Joinder [#35]. Additionally, Defendant noted that, after filing the Motion for Joinder [#35], Plaintiff had filed a document that could be interpreted as a Motion to Amend [#36], along with a Proposed Amended Complaint [#36-1]. Defendant argued that Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder [#35] could therefore be denied either for failure to include a proposed amended complaint or as superseded by a later filing. In the alternative, Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to provide good cause for adding the proposed new defendants.
On September 15, 2014, the Court entered a Minute Order [#39] adjudicating Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder [#35]. In the Minute Order [#39], the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder [#35] as moot because the Motion for Joinder [#35] did not include a proposed amended complaint as a separate document. The Court also recognized Plaintiff's filings of [#36] and [#36-1] as an appropriate Motion to Amend and a Proposed Amended Complaint, respectively, and noted that an order on Plaintiff's amended request [#36] would issue in due course. On September 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Reply [#40] to Defendant's Response [#37]. However, because the Court had already entered the Minute Order [#39] adjudicating Plaintiff's underlying Motion for Joinder [#35] as moot, Plaintiff's Reply [#40] was also moot.
On November 7, 2014, the Court issued Order [#43] regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [#36]. In the Order [#43], the Court noted that Defendant had filed a Response [#41] to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [#36], but that Plaintiff had not filed a Reply to Defendant's Response [#41]. Although Plaintiff argues to the contrary, this depiction is accurate because, although Plaintiff filed a Reply [#40] in support of the Motion for Joinder [#35], he did not file a Reply to the Motion to Amend [#36].
II. Standard of Review
A motion for reconsideration "is an extreme remedy to be granted in rare circumstances." Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 944 (10th Cir. 1995). It is well-established in the Tenth Circuit that grounds for a motion to reconsider are limited to the following: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence previously unavailable; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Brumark, 57 F.3d at 948). Therefore, a motion to reconsider is "appropriate [only] where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law." Id.
III. Analysis
Plaintiff does not argue that there has been an intervening change in the controlling law or that the Court should consider new, previously-unavailable evidence. Rather, he appears to argue that there is a need to correct clear error and prevent manifest injustice. However, Plaintiff provides no valid reason as to why the Court should reconsider its prior Order [#43], which granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [#36]. In the instant Motion to Reconsider [#48], Plaintiff argues that the Court overlooked Plaintiff's Reply [#40], which stems from Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder [#35], as well as a letter, which the Plaintiff dated September 18, 2014, and was filed September 23, 2014 (the "Letter" [#42]). However, as noted previously, Plaintiff's Reply [#40] is moot because Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint with his underlying Motion for Joinder [#35]. Furthermore, Plaintiff's Letter [#42], to the extent that it serves as a reply to his Motion for Joinder [#35], is moot for the same reason.
However, even were the Court to consider the arguments provided by Plaintiff in the Reply [#40] and the Letter [#42], the outcome reached by the Court on the Motion to Amend [#36] would not be altered. In the Motion to Reconsider [#48], Plaintiff provides several facts and explanations, including a substantially similar copy of his Reply [#40], to clarify his request to join additional defendants to his Complaint See Motion to Reconsider [#48]. In reviewing Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider [#48], and construing Plaintiff's filings "generously and with the leniency and deference due pro se litigants[,]" West v. Denver Cnty. Jail Warden, No. 07-cv-00226-REB-KLM, 2008 WL 732600, at *1 (D. Colo. March 18, 2008) (citations omitted), the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Reply [#40] and Letter [#42] would not affect the Court's prior Order [#43] denying Plaintiff's request to join additional defendants. As the Court previously noted, "a failure to adhere to administrative regulations does not equate to a constitutional violation." Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063, 1068 n.4 (10th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). See Order [#43] at 6. Plaintiff's Reply [#40] and Letter [#42] do not change Plaintiff's underlying allegation that Defendant violated Colorado Department of Corrections ("CDOC") Administrative Regulation ("A.R.") 150-01 § IV.E.3.t.2 by failing to restore Plaintiff to "all programs, privileges, and assignments" after Plaintiff was released from segregation. A.R. 150-01 § IV.E.3.t.2 (2014); see generally Compl. Accordingly, because Plaintiff's Motion [#48] is premised on an allegation of an administrative violation, which does not constitute a constitutional violation, Plaintiff's Motion [#48] seeking reconsideration is denied.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#48] is DENIED.
DATED: December 8, 2014 at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
Kristen L. Mix
United States Magistrate Judge