United States of America v. $79,010.00 in United States Currency
ORDER that Claimant's "Supplement to Motion to Suppress Disclaimer of Ownership of U.S. Currency" 47 is denied. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/14/11. (DMT)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,
$79,010.00 in United States currency, et.
On March 3, 2011, pro se Claimant, Quezon Gray, filed a motion to suppress a
disclaimer of ownership. Doc. 34. Plaintiff filed a response (Doc. 41), and Mr. Gray did
not file a reply. On July 5, 2011, the Court denied Mr. Gray’s motion to suppress. Doc.
45. Mr. Grey then filed a motion on July 18, 2011, and again on September 9, 2011,
labeled, “Defendant’s Supplement to Motion to Suppress Disclaimer of Ownership of
U.S. Currency.” Docs. 47, 48. The motion has been fully briefed. Docs. 49, 50. For the
reasons stated below the Court will deny the motion.
Mr. Gray gives no legal basis for the Court to rule on a supplement to a motion the
Court has already denied. To the extent that the Court treats Mr. Gray’s motion as a
supplement, the Court will deny the motion as moot.
Mr. Gray states in his reply that the motion should be construed as a motion for
reconsideration. Doc. 50 at 2. Because federal courts must “liberally construe the
>inartful pleading= of pro se litigants@ (Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.
1987) (citation omitted)), the Court will address Mr. Grey’s motion as a motion for
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to
make new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought. See N.W.
Acceptance Corp.v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988); United
States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998).
reconsideration will be denied Aabsent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new
facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court=s] attention earlier
with reasonable diligence.@ LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Mere disagreement with an order is an
insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM
A motion for
(ECV), 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008).
Mr. Grey alleges no legal error in the Court’s denial of his original motion. He
merely “re-urges the Court” to suppress his disclaimer of ownership, and he alleges
“more detailed facts” and “other factual circumstances excluded from [his] previous
pleading” (Doc 47 at 1). All of the facts, however, pertain to the stop by Officer Bentley
during which Mr. Grey signed the disclaimer of ownership that Mr. Grey already
discussed in his prior motion, and Mr. Grey offers no reason why he could not have
presented the more detailed facts at that time. See Docs. 47 §§ 2-15, 34 at 1-2. It appears
that Mr. Grey only provided his new account of what happened in order to make new
legal arguments – in this case, constitutional claims – that he could have made previously
but did not. See Doc. 47 §§ 14, 16. Even under the liberal pleading requirements applied
to pro se litigants, Mr. Grey fails to meet the standards for a motion for reconsideration.
IT IS ORDERED that Claimant’s “Supplement to Motion to Suppress Disclaimer
of Ownership of U.S. Currency” (Doc. 47) is denied.
Dated this 14th day of November, 2011.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?