United States District Court, D. New Mexico
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED
FASHING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
MATTER comes before the Court on the document filed by
plaintiff Benjamin Archuleta dated September 25, 2018 and
docketed as a “motion for reconsideration” by the
clerk. Doc. 14. This matter was referred to me by the
Honorable James O. Browning to conduct hearings, if
warranted, including evidentiary hearings, and to perform any
legal analysis required to recommend to the Court an ultimate
disposition of the case. Doc. 15. Having reviewed the
document filed by Mr. Archuleta, I find that it does not
state any grounds for relief from judgment. Therefore, I
recommend that any ascertainable request for relief sought in
Mr. Archuleta's filing be DENIED.
to reconsider in civil cases fall into three categories:
a motion to reconsider filed within [twenty-eight] days of
the entry of judgment is treated as a motion to alter or
amend the judgment under rule 59(e); (ii) a motion to
reconsider filed more than [twenty-eight] days after judgment
is considered a motion for relief from judgment under rule
60(b); and (iii) a motion to reconsider any order that is not
final is a general motion directed at the Court's
inherent power to reopen any interlocutory matter in its
discretion. See Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158,
1167 n.9 (10th Cir. 2005).
Pedroza v. Lomas Auto Mall, Inc., 258 F.R.D. 453,
462 (D.N.M. 2009) (Browning, J.); see also Computerized
Thermal Imaging, Inc. v. Bloomberg. L.P., 312 F.3d 1292,
1296 (10th Cir. 2002).
may treat motions for reconsideration as a Rule 59(e) motion
when the movant files within twenty-eight days of a
court's entry of judgment. See Price, 420 F.3d
at 1167 n.9. If the movant files outside of that time, courts
should treat the motion as seeking relief from judgment under
Rule 60(b). Id.
a motion for reconsideration should be considered a motion
under Rule 59 or Rule 60 is not only a question of timing,
but also “depends on the reasons expressed by the
movant.” Commonwealth Prop. Advocates, LLC v.
Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 680 F.3d 1194,
1200 (10th Cir. 2011). Where the motion “involves
‘reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a
decision on the merits, '” a court considers the
motion under Rule 59(e). Phelps v. Hamilton, 122
F.3d 1309, 1323-24 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting Martinez v.
Sullivan, 874 F.2d 751, 753 (10th Cir. 1989)). In other
words, if the reconsideration motion seeks to alter the
district court's substantive ruling, then it should be
considered a Rule 59 motion and be subject to Rule 59's
constraints. See Phelps, 122 F.3d at 1324. In
contrast, under Rule 60,
[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or
its legal representatives from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it ...