IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02541-LTB

CECIL BYNUM,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, MUNICIPALITY,

MAYOR MICHAEL HANCOCK,

KERI JOHNSON,

DAVID RYAN,

A. P. RICHMOND,

J. CASIAS,

J. ANDREWS,

ROBERT HART, and

J. SIMMONS,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER 

AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPEAL

This matter before the Court is the “Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of

Appeal Combined Motion Requesting Clarification of Court Ordered Dismissal” that

Plaintiff Cecil Bynum, a pro se prisoner litigant, filed on December 6, 2011. Mr. Bynum

seeks clarification of the Order entered on November 15, 2011, dismissing the instant

action. The Court must construe the Motion Requesting Clarification liberally because

Mr. Bynum is proceeding pro se. 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,

Case 1:11-cv-02541-LTB Document 21 Filed 12/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2

the Court will construe the Motion as filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and will

deny the Motion.

The Court dismissed the action because Mr. Bynum failed to comply with the

Order of October 5, 2011, directing him to submit his claims on a proper, Courtapproved form.

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). Final

decisions are those that end the litigation on the merits and leave nothing for the district

court to do except execute the judgment. Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517,

521-22 (1988); In re Durability, Inc., 893 F.2d 264, 265 (10th Cir. 1990). The Motion

was filed on December 6, 2011, well within twenty-eight days of the final judgment in

this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). The Court, therefore, will construe the Motion as

filed pursuant to Rule 59(e). See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243 (stating that a motion to

reconsider should be construed as filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) when it is filed within the

ten-day limit (limit effective prior to December 1, 2009) set forth under Rule 59(e)). 

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 Servants of the Paraclete v. Does,

204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A motion to reconsider is appropriate where a

Case 1:11-cv-02541-LTB Document 21 Filed 12/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law. Id. (citing

Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243).

In the Motion, Mr. Bynum claims that the October 5 Order is confusing. He

asserts that the Court was not clear what needed to be submitted to the Court on a

Court-approved form. Mr. Bynum’s claim is incredible. He submitted a complaint on

November 3, 2011, in response to the Court’s October 5 Order. He stated his claims,

identified parties, the basis for jurisdiction, and a request for relief. He, however, failed

to use a Court-approved form, which he concedes he had in the complaint packet he

obtained from the internet. Furthermore, if Mr. Bynum did not understand the October 5

Order, or the instructions he obtained from the internet, he should have requested

clarification prior to the action being dismissed.

On consideration of the construed Motion to Reconsider, the Order of Dismissal,

and the entire file, the Court concludes that Mr. Bynum fails to demonstrate some

reason why the Court should alter or amend the November 15 Order of Dismissal and

Judgment in this action. Nothing Mr. Bynum asserts gives cause for reinstating this 

case.

Furthermore, the Court notes that the case was dismissed without prejudice. If

Mr. Bynum desires to proceed with his claims he may file a new action.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Mr. Bynum’s Motion Requesting Clarification of Court Ordered

Dismissal (Doc. No. 16) is construed as filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and is

denied. It is

Case 1:11-cv-02541-LTB Document 21 Filed 12/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

FURTHER ORDERED that because Mr. Bynum has filed a Notice of Appeal Mr.

Bynum’s Motion for Extension of Time fo File Notice of Appeal (Doc. No. 16) is denied

as moot. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 13th day of December , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Judge

United States District Court 

Case 1:11-cv-02541-LTB Document 21 Filed 12/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4