Case 1:13-cv-02009-LTB Document 17 Filed 09/18/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02009-LTB
DARRELL ERIC PATTERSON,
BOBBY BONNER, Warden KCCC/CCA,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Plaintiff, Darrell E. Patterson, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections who currently is incarcerated at the Kit Carson Correctional
Center in Burlington, Colorado. He filed pro se on September 13, 2013, a motion titled
“Motion for Relief From Judgement [sic]” (ECF No. 16) pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure asking the Court to reconsider and vacate the Order of
Dismissal and the Judgment entered in this action on August 28, 2013. The Court must
construe the September 13 motion liberally because Mr. Patterson is not represented by
an attorney. 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 discussed below, the motion will be
treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, 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
Case 1:13-cv-02009-LTB Document 17 Filed 09/18/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
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). The Court will
consider Mr. Patterson’s September 13 motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) because the
motion was filed within twenty-eight days after the Judgment was entered in this action.
See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243 (stating that motion to reconsider filed within ten-day
limit for filing a Rule 59(e) motion under prior version of that rule should be construed as
a Rule 59(e) motion).
A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted “to correct manifest errors of law or to
present newly discovered evidence.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th
Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Relief under Rule 59(e) also is
appropriate when “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). However, a Rule 59(e) motion is not a new opportunity to revisit issues already
addressed or to advance arguments that could have been raised previously. See id.
The Court dismissed the instant action in part as legally frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and in part without prejudice as barred by the rule in Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The August 28 dismissal order discusses in detail the
reasons for the dismissal.
Upon consideration of the motion and the entire file, the Court finds that Mr.
Patterson fails to demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider and
vacate the order to dismiss this action. The Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion does not alter
Case 1:13-cv-02009-LTB Document 17 Filed 09/18/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
the Court’s conclusion that this action properly was dismissed. Therefore, the Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) motion will be denied.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion titled “Motion for Relief From Judgement [sic]” (ECF
No. 16) that Plaintiff, Darrell Eric Patterson, filed pro se on September 13, 2013, and
which the Court has treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e), is denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that any other pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 18th day of September , 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court