IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01756-DME-MJW

MARCUS LELAND FREEMAN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

WOOLSTON, Vocational Instructor, and

LIKEN, Education Department,

Defendant(s).

ORDER REGARDING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE ORDER ENTERED (DOC.

118)[SIC] TO DENY THE PLAINTIFF RELIEF IN THE MATTERS OF DISCOVERY

(DOC. 100)[SIC] AND IN CAMERA REVIEW (DOC. 114)[SIC]

(DOCKET NO. 122) 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

This matter was before the court for consideration on Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration to the Order (Doc 118)[sic] to Deny the Plaintiff Relief in the Matters of

Discovery (Doc. 100)[sic] and In Camera Review (Doc.114)[sic] (docket no. 122). The

court has considered the subject motion (docket no. 122) and the response (docket no.

125) thereto. In addition, the court has taken judicial notice of the court’s file and has

considered applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. The court now

being fully informed makes the following finding of fact, conclusions of law, and order.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The court finds:

Case 1:11-cv-01756-DME-MJW Document 126 Filed 07/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2

1. That I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties

to this lawsuit;

2. That venue is proper in the state and District of Colorado.

3. That each party has been given a fair and adequate opportunity to

be heard.

4. That “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognize no motion for

reconsideration.” Hawkins v. Evans, 64 F.3d 543, 546 (10th Cir.

1995) (quotation and internal quotation marks omitted). “The

court’s treatment of the motion for reconsideration depends on

whether the order is a final order that disposes of all claims and all

parties or is an interlocutory order.” Gagliardi v. Duran, 2009 WL

5220679, *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 31, 2009). “[A]ny order . . . however

designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights

and liabilities of fewer that all the parties is an interlocutory order

which is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment

adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the

parties.” Id. (quoting Raytheon Constructors, Inc. v. Asarco Inc.,

368 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2003); National Bus. Brokers, Ltd. v.

Jim Williamson Productions, Inc., 115 F. Supp.2d 1250, 1255 (D.

Colo. 2000)). “Notwithstanding the court’s broad discretion to alter

its interlocutory orders, the motion to reconsider ‘is not at the

disposal of parties who want to rehash old arguments.’” National

Bus. Brokers, 115 F. Supp.2d at 1256 (quotation and internal

Case 1:11-cv-01756-DME-MJW Document 126 Filed 07/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

quotation marks omitted). “Rather, as a practical matter, ‘[t]o

succeed in a motion to reconsider, a party must set forth facts or

law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its

prior decision.’” Id. (quotation omitted). “A motion to reconsider . . .

should be denied unless it clearly demonstrates manifest error of

law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence.” Id.

5. That my Order (dated July 11, 2012 - docket no. 118) outlines, in

detail, the factual and legal basis of my decision on the Defendant’s

prior motions (docket nos. 114 and 100) which is the subject matter

of the subject motion (docket no. 122). The Pro Se Incarcerated

Plaintiff never filed any timely Objection to such Order (docket no.

118) as permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. See docket sheet. 

Instead, the Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff filed the subject motion

(docket no. 122). The three major grounds that justify

reconsideration are : (1) an intervening change in controlling law;

(2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct

clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Shields v. Shelter,

120 F.R.D. 123, 126 (D. Colo. 1988). Here, I find that the Pro Se

Incarcerated Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any basis in law or

fact for this court to reconsider my Order (docket no. 118), and the

Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff has further failed to justify

reconsideration of my Order (docket no. 118) under Shield. Id.

ORDER

Case 1:11-cv-01756-DME-MJW Document 126 Filed 07/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

WHEREFORE, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law this

court ORDERS:

1. That on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration to the Order (Doc.

118)[sic] to Deny the Plaintiff Relief in the Matters of Discovery

(Doc. 100)[sic] and In Camera Review (Doc. 114)[sic] (docket no.

122) is DENIED; and 

2. That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this

motion.

Done this 27th day of July 2012.

BY THE COURT

s/Michael J. Watanabe

MICHAEL J. WATANABE

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01756-DME-MJW Document 126 Filed 07/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4