Glaser v. Lovinger

Full title: DOUGLAS A. GLASER, Applicant, v. WILLIAM LOVINGER, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Feb 6, 2008

Civil Action No. 07-cv-00843-LTB-BNB (D. Colo. Feb. 6, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 07-cv-00843-LTB-BNB.

February 6, 2008

ORDER

BOYD BOLAND, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before me on the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. #27, filed 1/4/08] (the "Motion to Reconsider"). The petitioner requests that I reconsider my recommendation of December 12, 2007 [Doc. #24], in which I recommended that his Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. # 1, filed 4/25/07] (the "Application") be dismissed without prejudice. The Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.

I construe plaintiff's request for reconsideration as a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).¹ See Quigly v. Rosenthal, 43 F. Supp.2d 1163, 1172 (D. Colo. 1999). I have substantial discretion in ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion. Pelican Prod. Corp. v. Marino, 893 F.2d 1143, 1146 (10th Cir. 1990). Rule 60(b) "is not available to allow a party to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when reargument merely advances new arguments or supporting facts which were available for presentation at the time of the original argument." See Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 576 (10^th Cir. 1996).

1 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts provide that "[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules." Rule 11. The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts are applicable to section 2241 cases. Rule 1(b).

The petitioner filed his Application on April 25, 2007. Subsequently, he filed a Motion for Expedited Ruling or Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. #12, filed 7/6/07]; a Renewed Motion for Expedited Ruling [Doc. #17, filed 8/29/07]; and a Motion for Declaratory Judgement for Violations of Constitutional Rights and Bad Faith Prosecution with Malicious[,] Vindictive Intent [Doc. #22, filed 11/9/07]. I considered all of these motions when analyzing the Application and issuing my recommendation. The bases for the petitioner's Motion to Reconsider were either presented at the time he filed his Application and accompanying motions, or could have been presented at that time. Nor has the petitioner established any basis for me to reconsider my recommendation.

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.