Evans v. Colorado Housing and Finance Authority et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01033-CNS-SBP
RACHEL EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on three motions filed by Plaintiff: Plaintiff’s
two Motions for Reconsideration of Preliminary Injunction, ECF Nos. 33 and 34, and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing on Previously Denied Motions, ECF No. 45. For the reasons
explained below, the motions are DENIED.
I. SUMMARY FOR PRO SE PLAINTIFF
You have filed motions asking the Court to reconsider its prior denial of injunctive
relief. After considering the arguments raised in your motions, the Court denies your
motions for reconsideration and for a hearing, primarily because you did not show that
any new facts or a change in the law have occurred that would warrant reconsideration.
The Court will explain why it is denying the motions below, including a discussion of the
legal authority that supports this conclusion.
Case No. 1:24-cv-01033-CNS-TPO Document 52 filed 08/19/24 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 4

2
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff originally filed this case on March 11, 2024, in District Court in Mesa
County, Colorado, as Case No. 2024CV21. ECF No. 3 at 1. On April 17, 2024, HUD
removed the action to federal court. ECF No. 1 at 2. On May 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint in this Court, listing only HUD as a Defendant. ECF No. 7. Because
the other Defendants were not included in the amended complaint, they were terminated.
ECF No. 14. Plaintiff was evicted from the property on June 7. Plaintiff filed the six motions
for injunctive relief: the first two were filed on June 6, the third on June 11, the fourth on
June 12, the fifth on June 18, and the sixth on June 21. ECF Nos. 12, 13, 23, 25, 26, 27.
The Court denied these motions on June 20 and June 25, 2024. Plaintiff then filed the
two motions for reconsideration on July 5 and July 8, and the motion for a hearing on
August 8, 2024.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a motion for
reconsideration. Hatfield v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs for Converse Cnty., 52 F.3d 858, 861
(10th Cir. 1995). However, district courts have plenary power to revisit and amend
interlocutory orders as justice requires. Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Thompson Theatres,
Inc., 621 F.2d 1088, 1090 (10th Cir.1980).
There are three main grounds that justify reconsideration: “(1) an intervening
change in controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204
F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Stated differently, “a motion for reconsideration is
Case No. 1:24-cv-01033-CNS-TPO Document 52 filed 08/19/24 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 4

3
appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the
controlling law.” Id. Such relief is “extraordinary and may only be granted in exceptional
circumstances.” Schmier v. McDonald’s LLC, 569 F.3d 1240, 1243 (10th Cir. 2009)
(citation and quotations omitted).
IV. ANALYSIS
Here, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the previous denial of injunctive relief and
a hearing on her request for reconsideration. However, she has not demonstrated that
justice requires reconsideration, or that any of the three occasions warranting
reconsideration has occurred. The Court has not misapprehended the facts, or Plaintiff’s
position, or the controlling law. Instead, Plaintiff repeats the same arguments from her
previous motions, which the Court has already addressed. Essentially, Plaintiff argues
that the Court “has not given the Plaintiff any consideration of the accusations and the
complexity of this case” and has not given Plaintiff the opportunity to present evidence.
ECF No. 45 at 3. The Court assures Plaintiff that it has considered her arguments;
however, her arguments do not meet the necessary burden for injunctive relief. For
example, Plaintiff did not meet her burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits
because the eviction had already happened at the time Plaintiff filed her motions. The
Court’s previous order, ECF No. 28, describes these deficiencies in detail. Because
Plaintiff has not brought up any new facts that the Court did not consider, a change in the
law, or any clear error, the motions for reconsideration are denied. Disagreements with
the Court’s prior orders are not enough to satisfy the standard for reconsideration.
Case No. 1:24-cv-01033-CNS-TPO Document 52 filed 08/19/24 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 4

4
Because reconsideration is unwarranted, no hearing is necessary on the matter.
Plaintiff is discouraged from filing additional motions rehashing the same arguments for
injunctive relief, as these will also be denied. The Court again recommends that Plaintiff
consult the information available to plaintiffs representing themselves, including
information on requesting appointment of counsel, which can be found on the court’s
website, Representing Yourself | US District Court of Colorado (uscourts.gov), so that
Plaintiff can follow the appropriate procedures for the next stages of litigation. While the
Court is sensitive to Ms. Evans’s situation and pro se status, it cannot act as an advocate
and cannot disregard the standards set forth in the law. See James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d
1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration and for a
hearing, ECF Nos. 33, 34, 45.
DATED this 19th day of August 2023.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:24-cv-01033-CNS-TPO Document 52 filed 08/19/24 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 4