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

Case 1:01-cv-02438-MSK-OES

Document 71

Filed 04/04/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger Case No. 01-cv-02438-MSK CHERYL R. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. SAFEWAY, INC., Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ______________________________________________________________________________ THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to the Plaintiff' pro se Motion To s Review This Case Under Rule 60(B) (# 70), which the Court treats as a motion for reconsideration. On September 12, 2003, the Court dismissed (# 62) this case with prejudice as a sanction against the Plaintiff for discovery abuses and violation of the Court' orders. The10th Circuit, s affirmed (# 68) the dismissal on September 29, 2004. On January 10, 2005, the Supreme Court denied the Plaintiff' petition for certiorari, Richardson v. Safeway, Inc., 543 U.S. 1070 (2005) s (mem), and on April 18, 2005, denied the Plaintiff' petition for rehearing, 125 S.Ct. 1832 (mem). s The Plaintiff filed the instant motion asking the Court to " review this case based on the fact of the defendant' and court' mistakes, inadvertence, neglect, newly discovered evidence, s s fraud, etc." Although the Court liberally reads the Plaintiff' pro se motion, Haines v. Kerner, s

1

Case 1:01-cv-02438-MSK-OES

Document 71

Filed 04/04/2006

Page 2 of 2

404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991), the motion cites no facts whatsoever explaining why relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) should be granted. Moreover, the specific grounds listed by the Plaintiff arise under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(3), all of which require that the motion to reconsider be filed within one year of the judgment to be reconsidered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Here, the order dismissing the Plaintiff' case was entered in s 2003, more than 2½ years ago, and thus, Rule 60(b) prevents the Court from granting any relief on the grounds asserted by the Plaintiff. Finally, to the extent that the Plaintiff' motion is s premised on the argument that misconduct by the Defendant vitiates or mitigates the Plaintiff' s own sanctionable conduct, the 10th Circuit has expressly rejected this argument. See Richardson v. Safeway, Inc., 109 Fed.Appx. 275, 279 (10th Cir. 2004) (unpublished) (" will not consider we plaintiff's conclusory assertions to the effect that Safeway also failed to comply with its obligations under the discovery rules, because Safeway's conduct is not at issue in this appeal" ). Accordingly, the Plaintiff' Motion for Reconsideration (# 70) is DENIED. s Dated this 4th day of April, 2006 BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger United States District Judge

2