1

 “[#135]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a

specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this

convention throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No.11-cv-02291-REB-MJW

VERNE JAY MERRELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID ALLRED, D.O. FCC Health Services, and

PATRICIA MITCHELL, Program Mgt [sic] Officer, Health Services,

in their individual and professional capacities,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

Blackburn, J. 

The matter before me is plaintiff’s Motion for Relief From Judgment and Order

[#135],1

 filed July 17, 2013. Because the motion was filed more than 28 days after the

entry of Final Judgment [#110], filed April 4, 2013, see FED. R. CIV. P. 59(b), it is

properly brought and considered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have construed his pleadings more liberally

and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. 

See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081

(2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon,

935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92

Case 1:11-cv-02291-REB-MJW Document 143 Filed 09/06/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). 

Rule 60(b) relief requires a showing of exceptional circumstances warranting

relief from judgment. Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.

1991). A litigant shows exceptional circumstances by satisfying one or more of the

grounds for relief enumerated in Rule 60(b). Id. at 1243-44. Here, the only possible

applicable grounds for relief under Rule 60(b) are those provided by subparagraph (6),

which contemplates relief from judgment based on “any other reason that justifies

relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6). 

I perceive nothing in plaintiff’s motion to suggest that such extraordinary relief is

warranted in this case. Instead, plaintiff merely reasserts arguments that were

previously found unavailing. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the court’s previous rulings

provides no proper basis for relief under Rule 60(b) or otherwise. See Servants of the

Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (“Grounds warranting a motion

to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence

previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest

injustice. Thus, a motion for reconsideration . . . is not appropriate to revisit issues

already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.”)

(citations omitted). His arguments are matters properly raised on appeal, not reasons to

revisit the duly entered orders of this court. Brown v. McCormick, 608 F.2d 410, 413

(10th Cir. 1979) (noting that Rule 60(b) is “not a substitute for appeal”); Guara v. City of

Trinidad, 2013 WL 627139 at *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 20, 2013) (same).

Case 1:11-cv-02291-REB-MJW Document 143 Filed 09/06/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED it is ordered that plaintiff’s Motion for Relief

From Judgment and Order [#135], filed July 17, 2013, is DENIED.

Dated September 6, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02291-REB-MJW Document 143 Filed 09/06/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3