Greer v. Goodyear, City of et al

Filing 12

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: Pla's 11 "Motion for Recon[s]ideration Attorney and Enlarg[e]ment" is denied. This case must remain closed. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 7/12/10. (SAT)

Greer v. Goodyear, City of et al

Doc. 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Loretta Ann Greer, Plaintiff, vs. City of Goodyear, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 10-1050-PHX-JAT (LOA) ORDER

I.

Background On May 13, 2010, Plaintiff Loretta Ann Greer, who is a frequent filer in this Court

and is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Perryville in Goodyear, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to, among other things, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a deficient Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May 20, 2010 Order, the Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On June 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Emergenc[y] TRO Injunction." She also filed a "Notice of Informing," detailing her attempts to comply with the Court's May 20th Order and to obtain a certified trust fund account statement from the Arizona Department of Corrections Central Office. In a June 24, 2010 Order, the Court dismissed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because, regardless of Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's May 20th Order, Plaintiff

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

had not paid the filing fee, had three "strikes," and had not made a credible allegation in her four-count Complaint that she was in imminent danger of serious physical injury and had not demonstrated a nexus between an alleged imminent danger and her claims. Because the Court dismissed the Complaint, the Court denied as moot the "Motion for Emergenc[y] TRO Injunction." The Clerk of Court entered Judgment on June 24, 2010. On July 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Recon[s]ideration Attorney and Enlarg[e]ment" (Doc. #11). II. "Motion for Recon[s]ideration Attorney and Enlargment" In her Motion, Plaintiff requests "recon[s]ideration of application to [p]roceed in forma pauperis[,] attorney. enlarge time to file its exhibits, declar[a]tion combined." She claims the court "abused its discr[e]tion and improperly denied indigent statutes Plaintiff['s] application." Plaintiff contends that the Court denied her Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis because prison workers, who are also defendants, refused to issue the proper inmate banking printout. Plaintiff also claims her "motion for appointment of counsel is appropriate so this court will understand the elements of `disable[d'] plaintiff['s] immediate danger claim." She also asserts that she stated a credible claim of immediate danger in her Complaint, that she is still being exposed to unclean drinking water, and that her mental illness "shows exceptional circumstances exist requiring an attorney to correct Count II, [b]ecause the disability prevents Plaintiff from doing so." "Motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances." Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). "The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court "`to rethink what the court had already thought through ­ rightly or wrongly.'" Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Complaint, and Motion for Emergency TRO, as well as the Court's June 24th Order. The Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision. Reconsideration. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking an appointment of counsel in this closed case, the Court will deny her request. IT IS ORDERED: (1) Plaintiff's "Motion for Recon[s]ideration Attorney and Enlarg[e]ment" Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion for

(Doc. #11) is denied. (2) This case must remain closed.

DATED this 12th day of July, 2010.

-3-