Twitty v. USA

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 25-cv-02584-CYC
ANDRE J. TWITTY,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge.
On March 6, 2026, the Court granted the Motion to Enforce Filing Restrictions, to Vacate
Scheduling Conference and Related Deadlines, and to Extend Deadline to Respond to Plaintiff’s
Complaint, ECF No. 39, and dismissed this case without prejudice. ECF No. 40. Judgment
entered that day. ECF No. 41.
Almost three weeks later, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking permission to file a pro se
action. ECF No. 42. Given that judgment entered, the Court construes the motion as brought
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.
1991) (stating that a motion to reconsider should be construed as filed pursuant to Rule 59(e)
when it is filed within the limit set forth under Rule 59(e)). A motion to amend or alter a
judgment brought under Rule 59(e) “is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the
facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law,” not “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). “[O]nce the district court enters judgment, the
Case No. 1:25-cv-02584-CYC Document 44 filed 04/29/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 3

2
public gains a strong interest in protecting the finality of judgments.” Nelson v. City of
Albuquerque, 921 F.3d 925, 929 (10th Cir. 2019).
Here, the plaintiff offers no basis for relief. He ignores that this case was dismissed,
judgment entered, and the case terminated from the Court’s docket. He does not argue that the
Court “misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law,” Servants, 204 F.3d
at 1012, and simply disregards the procedural posture of this case. In short, he “makes no
arguments as to why this action should not have been dismissed for failure to comply with his
filing restrictions,” Escalante v. Droege, No. 24-3079-JWL, 2024 WL 3104613, at *1 (D. Kan.
June 24, 2024), and “does not argue that he had complied with the filing restrictions imposed
against him.” Greene v. Pac. Shore Prop. Mgmt., No. 19-cv-03142-LTB, 2019 WL 8886178, at
*1 (D. Colo. Dec. 4, 2019). That will not do.
This case was properly dismissed for the reasons stated in the March 6, 2026 Order, ECF
No. 40, namely that the plaintiff failed to comply with the filing restrictions imposed on him in
Twitty v. Daniels. No. 10-cv-02309-ZLW, Order Dismissing Case and Imposing Sanctions, ECF
No. 7 (D. Colo. Oct. 27, 2010); see also Twitty v. Daniels, 412 F. App’x 110, 112–13 (10th Cir.
2011) (imposing filing restrictions in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit).
To the extent the plaintiff’s motion is an attempt to comply with those filing restrictions, those
relate to the filing of a new case; they do not provide grounds for reconsideration in an existing
case.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Leave to file
a Pro Se Action, ECF No. 42, is DENIED.
Given that this Order provides the plaintiff with information about the status of that
motion, the plaintiff’s untitled motion “requesting the status of the motion,” ECF No. 43, is
Case No. 1:25-cv-02584-CYC Document 44 filed 04/29/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 3

3
GRANTED in part only to the extent it requests information about the status of ECF No. 42.
The untitled motion, ECF No. 43, is DENIED in all other respects.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2026, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-02584-CYC Document 44 filed 04/29/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 3