Opinion
Civil Action 19-cv-00154-CMA-KLM
08-15-2022
HUNTER ADAM MELNICK, Plaintiff, v. KAYLA JOHNSTON DEAN GONZALES, SUSAN WHITE, NICOLE JIMENEZ, OMER GARCIA, AHO WATERS COLORADO STATE BOARD OF PAROLE, SHEILE POMERANZ, BRYCE GILMORE, PRIMARY THERAPIST, TAMMIS JAHN, and DARCI ARCHER, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, Senior United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion Under FRCP 60(b) or FRCP 59 (Doc. # 154), which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order dismissing certain claims. (Doc. # 151). The Motion is denied for the following reasons.
“A motion to reconsider must be made upon grounds other than a mere disagreement with the court's decision and must do more than rehash a party's former arguments that were rejected by the court.” Artificial Nail Techs., Inc. v. Flowering Scents, LLC, No. 2:06CV609DAK, 2007 WL 3254744, at *2 (D. Utah Nov. 2, 2007); see also Vreeland v. Huss, No. 118CV00303PABSKC, 2020 WL 3447768, at *2 (D. Colo. June 24, 2020) (quoting Artificial Nail Techs.). Motions for reconsideration are generally appropriate only when there is (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence previously unavailable; or (3) a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
Melnick has not cited any new evidence or change in the controlling law, and he does not point to any clear error in the Court's prior ruling. Therefore, he has failed to establish grounds for a motion for reconsideration, and his motion must be denied.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion Under FRCP 60(b) or FRCP 59 (Doc. # 154) is DENIED.