PARK v. TD AMERITRADE TRUST COMPANY INC., 10-cv-02599-PAB-KMT. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20120412a58
Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 10, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on "Plaintiff's Further Motion in Opposition to Close this Action and Procedure to Report Felony Level Conduct to a Federal Judge" [Docket No. 130]. On November 30, 2011, the Court dismissed this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Docket No. 118. Judgment entered accordingly on December 2, 2011. See Docket No. 120. To the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that dismissal, the Court has already d
Summary: ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on "Plaintiff's Further Motion in Opposition to Close this Action and Procedure to Report Felony Level Conduct to a Federal Judge" [Docket No. 130]. On November 30, 2011, the Court dismissed this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Docket No. 118. Judgment entered accordingly on December 2, 2011. See Docket No. 120. To the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that dismissal, the Court has already de..
More
ORDER
PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on "Plaintiff's Further Motion in Opposition to Close this Action and Procedure to Report Felony Level Conduct to a Federal Judge" [Docket No. 130].
On November 30, 2011, the Court dismissed this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Docket No. 118. Judgment entered accordingly on December 2, 2011. See Docket No. 120. To the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that dismissal, the Court has already denied plaintiff's previous requests that the Court reconsider the dismissal, see Docket Nos. 127, 128, and plaintiff has identified no new or sufficient basis to do so in her present motion. See Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (stating that grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) motion 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") (citing Brumark Corp. v. Samson Resources Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995)). Furthermore, plaintiff's motion is dedicated almost exclusively to requesting action by other branches of the federal government and, to that extent, does not constitute a request of this Court.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that "Plaintiff's Further Motion in Opposition to Close this Action and Procedure to Report Felony Level Conduct to a Federal Judge" [Docket No. 130] is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
