Donald v. Pearson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 22-cv-01312-RM-NRN
LARON ANTONIO DONALD,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOUGLAS L. PEARSON,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Combined
Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60 (ECF No. 85), seeking reconsideration of the
Court’s August 18, 2023, Order (ECF No. 75), dismissing several of Plaintiff’s claims but
allowing his First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Pearson to proceed.
Defendant filed a Response to the Motion (ECF No. 90), and Plaintiff filed a Reply (ECF
No. 95). The Court denies the Motion for the reasons below.
Plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections, proceeds
pro se in this matter.1 As explained more fully in the Court’s Order and the magistrate judge’s
1 Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court liberally construes his pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21 (1972). But a pro se plaintiff must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants, and the
Court does not supply additional factual allegations to round out a complaint or construct legal theories on his
behalf. Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1096 (10th Cir. 2009). The Court may excuse a pro se plaintiff’s
failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion about various legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction,
or unfamiliarity with pleading requirements, but it does not act as his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Case No. 1:22-cv-01312-RM-NRN Document 96 filed 12/13/23 USDC Colorado pg
1 of 2

2
Recommendation (ECF No. 66), the claims in Plaintiff’s Amended Prisoner Complaint (ECF
No. 9) stem from his inability to obtain satisfactory dental care. However, because Plaintiff’s
retaliation claim remains pending and no final judgment has been entered, neither Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) nor Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) provides a basis for relief.
To the extent Plaintiff relies on the Court’s broad discretion to reconsider interlocutory
orders, see Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217, 1225 (10th Cir. 2007), the Court is not
persuaded that exercise of such discretion is appropriate here. From the Court’s perspective, this
case boils down to a mere disagreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Pearson about the
proper course of treatment for his dental needs. Plaintiff cites no intervening change in the
controlling law or any new evidence that was previously unavailable. The Court discerns no
clear error or manifest injustice with respect to the Order that is the basis for Plaintiff’s current
Motion.
Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 85).
DATED this 13th day of December, 2023.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
Senior United States District Judge
Case No. 1:22-cv-01312-RM-NRN Document 96 filed 12/13/23 USDC Colorado pg
2 of 2