IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02207-LTB

LORRAINE S. CISNEROS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SGT. MINJAREZ, 

CAPT. FLIER, 

C/M RUDE BACA,

LT. HIGH BANKS, and 

THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITY PROGRAM,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Plaintiff, Lorraine S. Cisneros, filed pro se on October 7, 2011, a letter (ECF No.

7) asking the Court to reconsider the October 3, 2011, dismissal of her complaint and

this action and to reopen the action. In addition, on October 12, 2011, Ms. Cisneros

submitted a letter and a certified copy of her trust fund account statement (ECF No. 8),

asking for legal advice as to whether there is a statute of limitations for refiling her case.

The Court must construe liberally Ms. Cisneros’s filings because she 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 stated below, the

October 3 letter will be construed liberally as a motion to reconsider and will be denied. 

The request in the October 12 letter for legal advice amounts to a request for an

advisory opinion from this Court, and will be denied because the Court is prohibited

Case 1:11-cv-02207-LTB Document 9 Filed 11/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

from giving Ms. Cisneros’s legal advice. See, e.g., KCCP Trust v. City of North

Kansas City, 432 F.3d 897, 899 (10th Cir. 2005) (“Article III limits the federal courts to

deciding ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies’ and thus prohibits [federal courts] from issuing

advisory opinions.”). 

A litigant subject to an adverse judgment 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). Ms. Cisneros filed the motion to reconsider within twenty-eight days

after the order dismissing her complaint and this action. Therefore, the Court finds that

the motion to reconsider is filed pursuant to Rule 59(e). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

The three major grounds that justify reconsideration are: (1) an intervening

change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to

correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Servants of the Paraclete v. 

Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Upon consideration of the motion to

reconsider and the entire file, the Court concludes that Ms. Cisneros fails to

demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider and vacate the order

dismissing this action. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Ms. Cisneros may

initiate a new action by obtaining the proper, Court-approved forms (with the assistance

of her case manager or the facility’s legal assistant), along with the applicable

instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. 

Accordingly, it is

Case 1:11-cv-02207-LTB Document 9 Filed 11/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

ORDERED that the letter (ECF No. 7) that Plaintiff, Lorraine S. Cisneros, filed

pro se on October 7, 2011, asking the Court to reconsider the October 3, 2011,

dismissal of her complaint and this action, and which the Court construed liberally as a

motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), is denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the letter that Ms. Cisneros filed pro se on October

12, 2011 (ECF No. 8) asking for legal advice is denied. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 3rd day of November , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK

Senior Judge, United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02207-LTB Document 9 Filed 11/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3