Arenberg v. Ryan et al

Filing 186

ORDER denying 185 Motion for Reconsideration of the order at docket 182 . Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 7/9/10.(JWS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
DAVID ARENBERG,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHARLES L. RYAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-02228 JWS
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motion at docket 185]

At docket 185 plaintiff David Arenberg (“Arenberg”) asks the court to reconsider
its order at docket 182, which granted defendants’ motion in limine at docket 156.
In reviewing Arenberg’s request, this court is mindful of the teaching of the Ninth
Circuit: “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly
discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly
unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.”1
Arenberg points to no change in controlling law. There is no newly discovered
evidence referenced in his motion. He does not contend that the court’s decision was
manifestly unjust. Arenberg does contend that the court’s decision was erroneous.
Upon examination of the order at docket 182, the court finds no clear error.
References to the medical care, medical claims, and lawsuits involving medical issues
pertaining to other inmates or plaintiff’s own medical issues (if there are any) which are
unrelated to his prostate care are not appropriate subjects of inquiry. Plaintiff complains

1

School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263
(9th Cir. 1993).

-1-

that if the defendants present testimony that plaintiff’s situation was an isolated
instance, he should be able to attack such testimony on cross-examination by reference
to the care provided in other circumstances. First, if defendants were to offer such
testimony it would violate the court’s order at docket 182. Second, if somehow
defendants manage to present such testimony, then they would have opened the door
to cross-examination by Arenberg, for they would have effectively undone the protection
they sought in the motion at docket 156.
With the clarification stated above, the motion at docket 185 is DENIED.
DATED this 9th day of July 2013.

/S/
JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-