Opinion
Civil Action 21-cv-00973-CMA Criminal Action 14-cr-00207-CMA-1
01-03-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/ Respondent, v. RANDE BRIAN ISABELLA, Defendant/ Movant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT (Doc. # 350)
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Rande Brian Isabella's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e). (Doc. # 350.) For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.
Mr. Isabella was convicted of coercion and enticement and attempted production of child pornography charges and sentenced in 2017. (Doc. # 276.) In March 2021, he filed a Motion to Vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. # 330.) On November 17, 2021, the Court denied Mr. Isabella's Motion to Vacate and resolved several related pending motions filed by Mr. Isabella. (Doc. # 349.) Mr. Isabella now asks the Court to reconsider its order denying his Motion to Vacate.
The Court must construe Mr. Isabella's Motion liberally because he is proceeding pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
A litigant subject to an adverse judgment who seeks reconsideration by the district court may file a motion “to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).” Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). “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. 1:18-CV-00303-PAB-SKC, 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 Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Mr. Isabella has failed to demonstrate any of these circumstances.
Mr. Isabella spends the majority of his Motion either rehashing arguments he made in his Motion to Vacate or objecting to various alleged procedural defects in the Court's order and in his 2016 criminal trial. See (Doc. # 350.) In addition to attempting to relitigate his prior arguments, Mr. Isabella argues that the Court incorrectly relied on several “false procedural facts” asserted by the Government in denying his Motion, see (id. at 3, 15, 24), and that the Court “overlooked” other relevant facts, see (id. at 11). Mr. Isabella also objects that the Court granted in part his Motion to Amend Motion to Vacate (Doc. # 341) without requiring a Response from the Government, notwithstanding the fact that the Government did file a Response to his Motion to Amend (Doc. # 343) and argued that Mr. Isabella's amended motion was meritless for the reasons previously stated in the Government's prior Response (Doc. # 338).
Mr. Isabella fails to point to any change in the controlling law, any new evidence previously unavailable, or any “clear error” in the Court's order. Rather, his Motion is based on “mere disagreement with the court's decision.” Artificial Nail Techs., 2007 WL 3254744, at *2. Further, after thoroughly reviewing Mr. Isabella's arguments and the November 17 order (Doc. # 349), the Court sees no manifest errors of law in its prior order. See Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997). Because Mr. Isabella fails to establish a sufficient basis for altering or amending the Court's order, his Motion for Reconsideration must be denied. See Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Rande Brian Isabella's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. # 350) is DENIED.