Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 255

Filed 06/23/2008

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 04-cv-01067-REB-CBS WILLIAM R. CADORNA, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NEW TRIAL

Blackburn, J. The matter before me is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant New Trial [#250], filed October 26, 2007. I deny the motion. Although the court always has inherent power to reconsider its interlocutory rulings, it should do so only in limited circumstances: 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 appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law. It is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing. Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). None of these conditions are met here. Plaintiff's arguments are nothing more than a festooned reiteration of those I have previously rejected, both in ruling on

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 255

Filed 06/23/2008

Page 2 of 2

the motion for new trial itself and in denying plaintiff's motion for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).1 (See Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Certify Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.c. § 1292(b) of Order Granting Defendant New Trial [#249], entered October 25, 2007.) THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant New Trial [#250], filed October 26, 2007, is DENIED Dated June 23, 2008, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT: s/ Robert E. Blackburn Robert E. Blackburn United States District Judge

In addition to the obvious parallelism between the arguments made in support of plaintiff's section 1292(b) motion and those advanced here, the fact that the instant motion was filed the day after I entered my order denying relief under section 1292(b) further strongly suggests that plaintiff has no proper basis for requesting reconsideration but is merely seeking a third bite at the apple.

1

2