White v. Hesse

Full title: LARRY WHITE, Applicant, v. LOU A. HESSE, Supt. CCF, JOE ORTIZ, Exec. Dir.…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Feb 14, 2007

Civil Action No. 06-cv-01901-ZLW (D. Colo. Feb. 14, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 06-cv-01901-ZLW.

February 14, 2007

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

ZITA WEINSHIENK, Senior District Judge

On February 5, 2007, Applicant Larry White filed a pro se document titled "Motion for Demand for Judgement [sic], Pursuant to Rule 54, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." The Court must construe the Motion liberally because Mr. White 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 will be construed as a Motion to Reconsider and 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). A motion to reconsider filed within ten days after the judgment will be considered pursuant to Rule 59(e). See id. A motion to reconsider filed more than ten days after the final judgment in an action should be considered pursuant to Rule 60(b). See id. at 1243. Mr. White's Motion, which was filed more than ten days after the Court's order and judgment of dismissal entered on January 5, 2007, will be construed as a Motion to Reconsider filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 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 (10^th Cir. 1994).

The Court denied Mr. White's habeas Application as successive and abusive in the instant action. The basis for the dismissal is explained in detail in the dismissal order entered on January 5, 2007. Upon consideration of the Motion to Reconsider and the entire file, the Court finds that Mr. White fails to demonstrate the existence of any extraordinary circumstances that would justify a decision to reconsider and vacate the order dismissing this action. Therefore, the Motion will be denied. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the "Motion for Demand for Judgement [sic], Pursuant to Rule 54, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," filed February 5, 2007, is construed as a Motion to Reconsider filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is denied.