IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02693-LTB

ASA MEEK,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF COLORADO (People),

COUNTY OF EAGLE,

ROBERT THOMAS MOOREHEAD, and

GREG CRITTENDENDUM, 

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Plaintiff, Asa Meek, a state prisoner who is in the custody of the Colorado

Department of Corrections (DOC), filed a pro se motion titled “Motion to Cure

Defenciey’s [sic]” on December 14, 2011. The Court must construe the motion liberally

because Mr. Meek is a pro se litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21

(1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). The “Motion to Cure

Defenciey’s [sic],” therefore, will be construed as a Motion to Reconsider and will be

denied for the reasons stated below. 

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). Mr. Meek filed the Motion to Reconsider within twenty-eight days after

Case 1:11-cv-02693-LTB Document 11 Filed 12/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

the Order of Dismissal and the Judgment were entered in the instant action. The Court,

therefore, 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 Mr. Meek fails to demonstrate

that any of the grounds justifying reconsideration exist in his case.

Mr. Meek initiated this action by filing a pro se Prisoner Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 on October 17, 2011. He was granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis without payment of an initial partial filing fee on November 8, 2011. In the

Complaint, Mr. Meek asserted that his constitutional rights were violated during the

course of his state court criminal proceedings. As relief, Mr. Meek requested

compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to the dismissal of his habitual criminal

convictions. By order dated November 16, 2011, the Court determined that Mr. Meek’s

claims were barred by the ruling set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 

Therefore, the action was dismissed without prejudice. Judgment also entered on

November 16, 2011.

In the Motion to Reconsider, Mr. Meek acknowledges that his claims are

currently barred by Heck. He requests that his case “be set over (dismissed without

prejudice) until this plaintiff has time to revisit and exhaust state remedies, then proceed

Case 1:11-cv-02693-LTB Document 11 Filed 12/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

with the above captioned case.” Motion at 2-3. However, Mr. Meek is informed that his

case was dismissed without prejudice. If Mr. Meek’s convictions are invalidated in the

state courts, nothing prevents him from reasserting the claims that were dismissed in

this action. Until that time, Mr. Meek’s claims remain barred by Heck.

Mr. Meek has not asserted any of the major grounds that would justify

reconsideration in his case, and the Motion to Reconsider will be denied. See Servants

of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the “Motion to Cure Defenciey’s [sic],” filed on December 14,

2011, is construed as a Motion to Reconsider and is denied. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 20th day of December , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02693-LTB Document 11 Filed 12/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3