Maske v. Chappell et al, No. 1:2009cv02188 - Document 19 (D. Colo. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER denying 6 Motion to reconsider and request to recuse and 15 Motion for Order for refund and directing Clerkof Court to process appeal filed by Jerry Maske, by Judge Zita L. Weinshienk on 10/01/09.(bjrsl, )

Download PDF
Maske v. Chappell et al Doc. 19 486 U.S. 517, 521-22 (1988); In re Durability, Inc., 893 F.2d 264, 265 (10th Cir. 1990). “It is well settled that an order dismissing the action . . . is a final judgment.” Sherr v. Sierra Trading Corp., 492 F.2d 971, 978 (10th Cir. 1974). The September 24, 2009, Order denied the Application and dismissed the action. Mr. Maske filed his first Letter challenging the dismissal of this case on September 26, 2009, and the other eleven Letters on September 29, 2009, all within ten days of the final judgment in the instant action. The Letters, to the extent they challenge the dismissal of this case, properly are filed as a Motion to Reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion to alter or amend that reiterates issues originally raised in the application and that seeks to challenge the legal correctness of the court’s judgment by arguing that the district court misapplied the law or misunderstood the litigant's position correctly is asserted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1244. Upon consideration of the construed Motion to Reconsider and the entire file, the Court concludes that Mr. Maske fails to demonstrate some reason why the Court should alter or amend the September 24, 2009, Order of Dismissal in this action and consider a change of venue. Therefore, the Motion to Reconsider will be denied. The Court also notes that the eleven Letters Mr. Maske filed on September 29, 2009, are harassing, in both tone and volume. Mr. Maske is directed to refrain from filing any further unnecessary Letters with this Court. Furthermore, the request for a refund by Mr. Maske, in Document No. 15, is denied as inappropriately filed in this case. Mr. Maske is asking for the return of the filing fees that he has paid in other cases. In any event, the filing fee is not refundable. Accordingly, it is 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.