United States of America v. $79,010.00 in United States Currency

Filing 51

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)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

United States of America,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

No. CV10-0244-PHX-DGC
ORDER

vs.
$79,010.00 in United States currency, et.
al.,
Defendants.

14
15

On March 3, 2011, pro se Claimant, Quezon Gray, filed a motion to suppress a

16

disclaimer of ownership. Doc. 34. Plaintiff filed a response (Doc. 41), and Mr. Gray did

17

not file a reply. On July 5, 2011, the Court denied Mr. Gray’s motion to suppress. Doc.

18

45. Mr. Grey then filed a motion on July 18, 2011, and again on September 9, 2011,

19

labeled, “Defendant’s Supplement to Motion to Suppress Disclaimer of Ownership of

20

U.S. Currency.” Docs. 47, 48. The motion has been fully briefed. Docs. 49, 50. For the

21

reasons stated below the Court will deny the motion.

22

Mr. Gray gives no legal basis for the Court to rule on a supplement to a motion the

23

Court has already denied. To the extent that the Court treats Mr. Gray’s motion as a

24

supplement, the Court will deny the motion as moot.

25

Mr. Gray states in his reply that the motion should be construed as a motion for

26

reconsideration. Doc. 50 at 2. Because federal courts must “liberally construe the

27

>inartful pleading= of pro se litigants@ (Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.

28

1987) (citation omitted)), the Court will address Mr. Grey’s motion as a motion for

1

reconsideration.

2

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to

3

make new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought. See N.W.

4

Acceptance Corp.v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988); United

5

States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998).

6

reconsideration will be denied Aabsent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new

7

facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court=s] attention earlier

8

with reasonable diligence.@ LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Mere disagreement with an order is an

9

insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM

10

A motion for

(ECV), 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008).

11

Mr. Grey alleges no legal error in the Court’s denial of his original motion. He

12

merely “re-urges the Court” to suppress his disclaimer of ownership, and he alleges

13

“more detailed facts” and “other factual circumstances excluded from [his] previous

14

pleading” (Doc 47 at 1). All of the facts, however, pertain to the stop by Officer Bentley

15

during which Mr. Grey signed the disclaimer of ownership that Mr. Grey already

16

discussed in his prior motion, and Mr. Grey offers no reason why he could not have

17

presented the more detailed facts at that time. See Docs. 47 §§ 2-15, 34 at 1-2. It appears

18

that Mr. Grey only provided his new account of what happened in order to make new

19

legal arguments – in this case, constitutional claims – that he could have made previously

20

but did not. See Doc. 47 §§ 14, 16. Even under the liberal pleading requirements applied

21

to pro se litigants, Mr. Grey fails to meet the standards for a motion for reconsideration.

22

IT IS ORDERED that Claimant’s “Supplement to Motion to Suppress Disclaimer

23

of Ownership of U.S. Currency” (Doc. 47) is denied.

24

Dated this 14th day of November, 2011.

25
26
27
28
-2-