United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
matter comes before the Court upon pro se Defendant
Roger Saul's “Defendants [sic] Motion for
Reconsideration of ‘Declaration of Validity'”
(Motion for Reconsideration), filed November 1, 2018. (Doc.
99). Saul requests that the Court reconsider its October 11,
2018, Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. 97) in which the
Court granted Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 57). Plaintiff responded to the Motion for
Reconsideration on November 14, 2018. (Doc. 100). Saul
replied on December 14, 2018; filed a
“Supplement/Exhibit” on December 20, 2018; and
filed a “Bates Ordering Supplement” on December
26, 2018. (Docs. 102, 103, and 104). Having considered the
Motion for Reconsideration, the accompanying briefing and
supplements, and the Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. 97),
the Court denies the Motion for Reconsideration.
does not specify if he is bringing the Motion for
Reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(b). The Court construes a motion to reconsider a judgment
as either a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment
or a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment or order,
depending on its filing date. Van Skiver v. United
States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991) (stating
Rule 59(e) and 60(b) are distinct, and noting that which rule
applies depends on when motion for reconsideration served).
Because Saul filed the Motion for Reconsideration within 28
days of the Court's entry of the Memorandum Opinion and
Order (Doc. 97) and the accompanying Final Summary Judgment
and Declaratory Judgment (Doc. 98), the Court construes the
Motion for Reconsideration as a Rule 59(e) motion. See
Id. (observing that “[i]f a motion is served
within  days of the rendition of judgment, the motion
ordinarily will fall under Rule 59(e). If the motion is
served after that time it falls under Rule 60(b).”)
(internal citations omitted); Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) (stating
that “motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed
no later than 28 days after the entry of the
59(e) movant carries the burden of demonstrating that the
Court should alter or amend a judgment. See, e.g.,
Winchester v. Wilkinson, 2015 WL 2412175, at *2 (E.D.
Okla.) (ruling that “court finds petitioner has failed
to meet his burden for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P.
59(e)”). “Grounds warranting a motion to alter or
amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) ‘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.'”
Alpenglow Botanicals, LLC v. United States, 894 F.3d
1187, 1203 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting Servants of the
Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.
2000)). Rule 59(e), however, does not allow a losing party to
“revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments
that could have been raised in prior briefing.”
Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
Moreover, “[r]aising a mere disagreement with a
court's prior decision is insufficient” to grant
a motion to reconsider. Buzz Bee Toys, Inc. v. Swimways
Corp., 20 F.Supp.3d 483, 516-17 (D.N.J. 2014) (citation
begin with, the Court will not consider Saul's arguments
that simply rehash previous arguments nor will the Court
consider arguments which Saul could have raised before now.
The Court further notes that Saul has not provided the Court
with either new controlling law or new evidence not available
previously. The question, then, is whether the Court should
vacate its Memorandum Opinions and Order (Doc. 97) and the
Final Summary Judgment and Declaratory Judgment (Doc. 98) to
“correct clear error or prevent manifest
Tenth Circuit has defined “clear error” as
“an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly
unreasonable judgment.” Wright ex rel. Trust Co. of
Kan. v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 259 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th
Cir. 2001). Although the Tenth Circuit has not precisely
defined “manifest injustice” within the meaning
of Rule 59(e), courts commonly define that term as “[a]
direct, obvious, and observable error in a trial court
....” Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.
2014). Saul has not convinced the Court that the analyses and
conclusions in the Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. 97) are
either arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly
unreasonable. Furthermore, Saul fails to demonstrate that the
Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. 97) contains direct,
obvious, and observable error. Hence, Saul has not shown that
the Court should alter or amend the Memorandum Opinion and
Order (Doc. 97) or the Final Judgment and Declaratory
Judgement (Doc. 98) “to correct clear error or prevent
Saul simply disagrees with the Court's decision to grant
Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Consequently, Saul
has not carried his burden of showing that he is entitled to
Rule 59(e) relief. The ...