Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02721-ZLW
10-25-2011
TED ROBERT JONES, Applicant, v. DR. CHAFONTE, DR. SEWELL, COLORADO WEST MENTAL HEALTH, Grand Jet. CO., CMHIPUEBLO, DELTA COUNTY COMBINED COURTS, and GARFIELD COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROBATION, Respondents.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Applicant, Ted Robert Jones, filed pro se on October 18, 2011, a letter to the Court (Doc. #11) asking the Court to reopen a number of cases including the instant action. The Court must construe the letter liberally because Mr. Jones is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Therefore, the Court will construe the letter as a motion to reconsider. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be denied.
A litigant subject to an adverse judgment 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). However, a motion to alter or amend the judgment must be filed within twenty-eight days after the judgment is entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because Mr. Jones' motion to reconsider was filed more than twenty-eight days after the Judgment was entered in this action on November 16, 2010, that motion properly is asserted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243 (stating that motion to reconsider filed after ten-day limit for filing a Rule 59(e) motion under prior version of that rule should be construed as a Rule 60(b) 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).
Mr. Jones initiated this action by filing an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the validity of various state court cases that were the subject of two other, then-pending habeas corpus actions. See Jones v. Miller, No. 10-cv-02455-LTB (D. Colo. Dec. 3, 2010); Jones v. Mesa County Courts, No. 10-cv-02458-ZLW (D. Colo. Dec. 8, 2010). The Court dismissed the instant action without prejudice and advised Mr. Jones that he may not initiate a new habeas corpus action challenging convictions already being challenged in other pending habeas corpus cases.
Mr. Jones now asks the Court to reopen this action because state and local government officials have committed crimes and violated his constitutional rights and the order dismissing this action "did not consider my legal evidence proving the State of Colorado and United States Federal Government should move forward with civil, criminal and class actions against them individually." (Doc. #11 at 1.)
Upon consideration of the motion to reconsider and the entire file, the Court finds that Mr. Jones fails to demonstrate the existence of any extraordinary circumstances that would justify a decision to reconsider and vacate the order dismissing this action. Mr. Jones is correct that the Court has not considered any evidence. However, the reason the Court did not consider any evidence is because Mr. Jones was challenging convictions that were the subject of other pending habeas corpus cases. Therefore, the motion to reconsider will be denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the letter to the Court (Doc. #11) filed on October 18, 2011, which the Court has construed as a motion to reconsider, is DENIED.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 25th day of October, 2011.
BY THE COURT.
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02721-BNB
Ted Robert Jones
PO Box 27673
Denver, CO 80227
I hereby certify that I have mailed a copy of the ORDER to the above-named individuals on October 25, 2011.
GREGORY C. LANGHAM, CLERK
By:__________
Deputy Clerk