Filed: Nov. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 19, 2015
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION ROBERT E. BLACKBURN , District Judge . The matter is before me on the plaintiff's untitled, pro se motion [#487] 1 filed October 1, 2015. 2 After reviewing the motion, the record, and the apposite law, I conclude that the motion should be denied. In a 13 page rant Ms. Chytka continues her morbid preoccupation with her ongoing idee fixe that she has been wronged by the court. Whether viewed as a motion to reconsider or a motion seeking relief from a judgment or orde
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION ROBERT E. BLACKBURN , District Judge . The matter is before me on the plaintiff's untitled, pro se motion [#487] 1 filed October 1, 2015. 2 After reviewing the motion, the record, and the apposite law, I conclude that the motion should be denied. In a 13 page rant Ms. Chytka continues her morbid preoccupation with her ongoing idee fixe that she has been wronged by the court. Whether viewed as a motion to reconsider or a motion seeking relief from a judgment or order..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION
ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.
The matter is before me on the plaintiff's untitled, pro se motion [#487]1 filed October 1, 2015.2 After reviewing the motion, the record, and the apposite law, I conclude that the motion should be denied.
In a 13 page rant Ms. Chytka continues her morbid preoccupation with her ongoing idee fixe that she has been wronged by the court. Whether viewed as a motion to reconsider or a motion seeking relief from a judgment or order, Ms. Chytka fails to factually or legally circumstantiate a basis for relief.
On September 23, 2015, I entered an Order Concerning Motion for Attorney Fees [#485] in which, inter alia, I awarded the defendant attorney fees and costs. The instant motion appears to be directed largely to that order. Viewed first as a possible motion to reconsider, I rehearse the familiar legal standard that the bases for granting reconsideration are extremely limited:
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). Ms. Chytka falls well short of establishing any of these bases for reconsideration
In the alternative, the motion could be construed as a motion for relief from an order under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) relief requires a showing of exceptional circumstances warranting relief from a judgment or order. Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). A litigant shows exceptional circumstances by satisfying one or more of the grounds for relief enumerated in Rule 60(b). Id. at 1243-44. Ms. Chytka does not circumstantiate any of the grounds for relief enumerated in Rule 60(b).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion to the court in opposition, is denied.
