Velasquez v. State of Utah et al, No. 2:2018cv00728 - Document 31 (D. Utah 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 29 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 3/12/19 (alt)

Download PDF
Velasquez v. State of Utah et al Doc. 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CARLOS VELASQUEZ, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. Case No. 2:18-cv-00728-DN STATE OF UTAH, et al., District Judge David Nuffer Defendants. Plaintiff Carlos Velasquez filed a motion (the “Motion”) 1 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) 2 for reconsideration of the Memorandum Decision and Order of Dismissal (“Dismissal Order”) 3 and resulting judgment. 4 The Motion is impermissibly and excessively overlength 5 and generally difficult to follow. In essence, its principal arguments are: 1. The Dismissal Order “misrepresent[s] the standards presented” and “the proceeding,” 6 lacks “credibility,” 7 and is otherwise inaccurate, 8 “misleading,” and an “abuse [of] authentic power.” 9 1 Request for Reconsideration of a Memorandum of Dismissal, and Order of Cloture (“Motion”), docket no. 29, filed March 8, 2019. 2 See id. at 2:8-9. 3 Docket no. 27, filed February 25, 2019. 4 Judgment in a Civil Case, docket no. 28, filed February 25, 2019. 5 See DUCivR 7-1(a)(3)(C). 6 Motion, supra note 1, at 3:9-11, 4:7-8; see id. at 22-23, 34:15-19; see Letter from Velasquez, docket no. 29-1, filed March 8, 2019. 7 Motion, supra note 1, at 22:7-9. 8 Id. at 22:5-6. 9 Id. at 5:16-6:2; see id. at 35. elm Dockets.Justia.com 2. The Dismissal Order and resulting judgment are erroneous as a matter of law and an abuse of discretion. 10 3. The court is prejudiced 11 and did not exercise “procedural diligence.” 12 Each of these arguments is incorrect and without merit—as is the Motion also. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion 13 is DENIED. Signed March 12, 2019. BY THE COURT: David Nuffer United States District Judge 10 See id. at 5-8, 14, 18-32, 35-39, 42-43, 45. 11 See id. at 22:15-23:1, 23:8-10, 35:4-7. 12 Id. at 4:13-14; see id. at 13 ¶ 32, 23:6-10, 33-34, 46:12-15. 13 Docket no. 29, filed March 8, 2019. 2

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.