Young v. Oliver

Full title: TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG, Plaintiff/Applicant, v. WARDEN OLIVER…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Mar 18, 2015

Civil Action No. 15-cv-00200-LTB (D. Colo. Mar. 18, 2015)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 15-cv-00200-LTB

03-18-2015

TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG, Plaintiff/Applicant, v. WARDEN OLIVER, Defendant/Respondent.

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge United States District Court

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The matter before the Court is the "Rule #60 Motion," ECF No. 4, that Mr. Young filed on March 16, 2015. Mr. Young is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and currently is incarcerated at ADX in Florence, Colorado. The Court must construe the Motion liberally because Mr. Young is a pro se litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the Motion.

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 (10th Cir. 1991). A motion to alter or amend the judgment must be filed within twenty-eight days after the judgment is entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because the Motion to Reconsider was filed more than twenty-eight days after the dismissal of this case, (case was dismissed on February 2, 2015), the Court will consider the Motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243.

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 (10th Cir. 1994). Upon consideration of the Motion and the entire file, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider and vacate.

In the Motion, Mr. Young challenges the filing restrictions he is subject to pursuant to Young v. United States, et al., No. 14-cv-00073-LTB, ECF No. 24 (D. Colo. Apr. 22, 2014).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Rule #60 Motion, ECF No. 4, filed on March 16, 2015, is construed as a Motion to Reconsider filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and is denied.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 18^th day of March, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court