Oliver v. Vallie

Full title: CLIFTON RAY OLIVER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE VALLIE, JOHN DOE MURPHY, JOHN…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Jul 10, 2006

Civil Action No. 05-cv-02493-ZLW (D. Colo. Jul. 10, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-cv-02493-ZLW.

July 10, 2006

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

ZITA WEINSHIENK, Senior District Judge

Plaintiff Clifton Ray Oliver has filed pro se on June 28, 2006, a "Motion for Reconsideration" in which he asks the Court to reconsider and vacate the Court's Order and Judgment of Dismissal filed in this action on June 19, 2006. The Court must construe the motion to reconsider liberally because Mr. Oliver is proceeding pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10^th Cir. 1991). For the reasons stated below, the motion to reconsider will be denied.

A litigant subject to an adverse judgment, and 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 (10^th Cir. 1991). Mr. Oliver filed the motion to reconsider within ten days after the Order and Judgment of Dismissal. Therefore, the Court will consider the motion to reconsider pursuant to Rule 59(e). See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243.

The Court dismissed the instant action without prejudice because Mr. Oliver was ordered to file an amended complaint by May 31, 2006, and he failed to do so. The Court signed the Order and Judgment of Dismissal on June 14, 2006. That same day, the Court received from Mr. Oliver an amended complaint. However, as noted above, the amended complaint was due by May 31, 2006. Mr. Oliver alleges in the motion to reconsider that he attempted to file his amended complaint within the time allowed but it was returned for lack of sufficient postage.

Upon consideration of the motion to reconsider and the entire file, the Court finds that Mr. Oliver fails to demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider and vacate the order to dismiss this action. Therefore, the motion to reconsider will be denied. Mr. Oliver is advised that, because the Court dismissed the instant action without prejudice, he may pursue his claims by filing a new action if he chooses. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the "Motion for Reconsideration" filed on June 28, 2006, is denied.