Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01948-REB-BNB.
February 27, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before me on the following motions:
(1) Motion to Clarify Factual Issue [Doc. # 108, filed 2/25/2008];
(2) Motion to Maintain Confidentiality [Doc. # 107, filed 2/25/2008]; and
(3) Motion for Assistance of Counsel [Doc. # 106, filed 2/25/2008].
I held a hearing on the motions this morning and made rulings on the record, which are incorporated here.
I construe the Motion to Clarify Factual Issue as a motion to reconsider in connection with my Recommendation [Doc. # 101, filed 2/12/2008]. Grounds warranting reconsideration include "(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. Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law." Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). A motion for reconsideration is not appropriate when the movant seeks to revisit issues already addressed or to advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing. Id. I find that there is no basis to reconsider my Recommendation, and the Motion to Clarify Factual Issue is DENIED.
Allowing the paralegal at the institution's law library to be present at the scheduling conference does not implicate my order allowing the plaintiff to proceed by pseudonym. Moreover, the scheduling conference is a public hearing. Consequently, the Motion to Maintain Confidentiality is DENIED.
I have previously denied the plaintiff's repeated requests for counsel. In addition, there is no evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim of deafness, and he was able to hear and participate in the conference this morning without any significant difficulty. The Motion for Assistance of Counsel is DENIED for these reasons and the reasons previously stated.
SO ORDERED.