You are on page 1of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

) WELLS FARGO BANK,


) National Association, et al.,,
)
) v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10CV3120
)
) DEFENDANT , Pro Se,
) CLARK BETTENHAUSEN,
) Defendants.

PLAINTIFF?S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendant pro se, Clark Bettenhausen respectfully requests that this


esteemed Court review and reconsider its ruling of Febuary 25, 2011
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e). Defendant states that
the Court’s ruling is a clear error of law and constitutes a manifest
injustice which should be reviewed and amended. Defendant relies on the
attached memorandum and the points of law therein.

Respectfully submitted,

Defendant, Pro Se
Clark Bettenhausen
P.O. 1072
Winnamcca, NV 89446
PHONE 913-620-7947

UNITED STATES DISTRICT


) WELLS FARGO BANK,
) National Association, et al.,,
)
) v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10CV3120
)
) DEFENDANT , Pro Se,
) CLARK BETTENHAUSEN,
) Defendants

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Defendant pro se, Clark Bettenhausen respectfully requests that the Court review and
reconsider its ruling and order of Febuary 25, 2011 pursuant to FRCP Rule 59(e) and
amend the ruling and order arising from Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss. The order state
Dismissed Without Prejudice if not Summary Judgment Denied.

II. STANDARD FOR REVIEW AND RECONSIDERATION

2. Review and reconsideration is appropriate under FRCP Rule 59(e) because the
Defendant asserts a “clear error of law” and a “manifest injustice” in this Court’s ruling
and order of Febuary 25, 2011, which granted Wells Fargo NA a money judgment and
dismissal of Defendants case.

?Although Rule 59(e) does not provide specific grounds for granting a motion to alter or
amend an otherwise final judgment, we agree with our sister circuits that district courts
may alter or amend judgment ?to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice.?? Collison v. International Chem. Workers Union Local 217, 34 F.3d 233, 236
(4th Circ. 1994), quoting Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Circ. 1993).

III. ARGUMENTS

3. In support of his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff offers the following facts
and arguments.

A. No Federal Rule exists that allows for a Motion of any kind to be amemded by a
Federal Judge to be something it was not writen or intended to be.

B. Clark E. Bettenhausen is the actual Plaintiff in this case and Wells Fargo Et. Al. is
the Defendant.

C. Bettenhausen is a a welder not an attorney.

D. Corey v. Skelton, 834 So. 2d 681 (Miss, 2003) quoting Short v. Columbus Rubber
& Gasket co., 535 So.2d. 61,63 (Miss 1988) the Court states: …The burden of
demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact falls upon the party
requesting the summary judgment. Id at 63-64.

E. Keywell Corp. v. Weinstein, 33 F. 3d 159 (2nd Cir. 1994), the party seeking
summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating absence of any genuine factual
dispute,

F. In Tolentino v. Friedman, 46 F. 3d 645 (7th Cir.1995), it was held summary


judgment is not granted unless there are no triable issues, And as noted by the Plaintiff,
The Court must carefully review all evidentiary matters before it; admissions in
pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, affidavits, etc. in the light most
favorable to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made.

G. Brown v. Credit Ctr. Inc. 444 So. 2d, 358, 362 (Miss 1983), Essentially considered
to mean, “When considering a motion for summary judgment, a Court must review the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non moving party and give the non moving
party the benefit of every doubt.”

I. In Anderson v. liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242 (1986); and City Mgm’t Corp. v.
U,S. Chemical Co., Inc., 43 .3d 244 (6th Cir. 1994), it was determined the role of a judge
at summary judgment stage is not to weigh evidence but to determine whether there is
genuine issue of material fact requiring trial that would make summary judgment
improper
H. The court is required to take a less stringent reading of Plaintiff?s Complaint than if
it was drafted by a lawyer for purposes of Motions to Dismiss.? Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972). See also Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980).

IV. CONCLUSION

4. For the above stated reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that this esteemed Court
review and reconsider its order of PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL. The ruling is clearly an error of law, is contradictory to
established law of this Circuit, and results in a manifest injustice to Plaintiff. Plaintiff
requests that this order be amended and state that Genuine Issues Exist and Pre Trial and
Trial Be Scheduled or in the alterintive Dismissed Without Prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

Plaintiff, Pro Se
Clark Bettenhausen
P.O. 1072
Winnamcca, NV 89446
PHONE 913-620-7947

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion, was sent via US
Postal Service First Class Mail, Certified, postage paid, on this ________ day of
_______________, 2011, to the following:

Trev Peterson
Indacott LLP
3800 VerMaas Plaza, Ste 200
Lincoln, NE 68502

Jerald Lundgren
Wells Fargo Bank
10010 Regency Circle
Omaha, NE 68114

Steve Blocher
Wells Fargo Bank
142 South Main St.
West Point, NE 68788

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association


Knudsen, Berkheimer, Richardson & Endacott, LLP
3800 VerMass Plaza, Ste 200
Lincoln, NE 68502

YOUR SIGNATURE

YOUR NAME
YOUR STREET ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP
PHONE #