Proctor v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 38 Motion Seeking Clarification of the Record, Order to Remand and Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 6/4/12.(DMT)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 10 11 12 Bradley D. Proctor, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 vs. Corrections Corp. of America, et al. 16 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV 11-0754-PHX-RCB O R D E R 17 18 Currently pending before the court is plaintiff pro se’s 19 motion “Seeking Clarification of the Record, Order to Remand, 20 and Reconsideration[.]” (Doc. 38) at 1 (emphasis omitted). 21 Relying upon Local Rules of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”) 22 7.2(g)(2),1 and construing the foregoing as a motion for 23 reconsideration, defendants Virginia Cox, William Crane, and 24 Lois Miracle (“the defendants”) filed a “Notice of Non- 25 26 27 28 1 That Rule provides in relevant part that “[n]o response to a motion for reconsideration . . . may be filed unless ordered by the Court[.]” LRCiv 7.2(g)(2). Because the court did not deem it necessary, the defendants were not required to file a response to the pending reconsideration motion. 1 Response” to plaintiff’s motion. 2 (emphasis omitted). 3 motion is untimely, the court will deny it. Because, as discussed below, plaintiff’s 4 5 Not. (Doc. 39) at 12-14 Background The court assumes familiarity with its order filed 6 February 13, 2012, requiring the defendants to answer certain 7 claims in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), but 8 “dismiss[ing] the remaining claims and Defendants with or 9 without prejudice[]” as specified therein. Ord. (Doc. 34) at 10 1:23-24. 11 reconsideration of several aspects of that order. 12 plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of this court’s decision 13 “declin[ing] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any 14 state law claims against . . . defendants” Corrections 15 Corporation of America, John Doe Flores; Jane Doe Alfaro, and 16 John Doe DeLash.2 17 § 1367(c)). 18 indicate[s] an absence of federal jurisdiction[;]” hence, 19 “the court is obliged to reconsider . . . the issue of 20 jurisdiction.” 21 specifically seeks “reconsideration,” as he frames it, on 22 “the issue of retaining an unpled jurisdiction over the three 23 remaining defendants Crane, Cox, and Miracle.” 24 25 In the pending motion, plaintiff is seeking See id. First, at 9:26-27 (citing 28 U.S.C. Second, plaintiff contends that the FAC “clearly See id. at 8. Third, the plaintiff Id. Discussion In accordance with LRCiv 7.2(g)(2), “[a]bsent good cause 26 2 27 28 Plaintiff is “question[ing] this court’s authority to” decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, and, thus, as he views it, “leav[ing] [such] claims in limbo where [this court] has disavowed jurisdiction in those matters.” Mot. (Doc. 38) at 4. -2- 1 shown, any motion for reconsideration shall be filed no later 2 than fourteen (14) days after the date of the filing of the 3 Order that is the subject of the motion.” 4 (emphasis added). 5 by mail, the court adds three days to this deadline in 6 accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d), for a total of 17 days. LRCiv 7.2(g)(2) Where, as here, service upon plaintiff was 7 Plaintiff Proctor is seeking reconsideration of this 8 court’s order filed February 13, 2012, and served upon him by 9 mail on that same date. Computing the time in the manner 10 just described, plaintiff thus had until March 1, 2012, by 11 which to file his reconsideration motion. 12 do that, however. 13 to file that motion. 14 good cause standard which “primarily considers the diligence 15 of the party filing the untimely motion.” 16 CCA/Eloy Detention Center, 2008 WL 2225759, at *1 (D. Ariz. 17 May 28, 2008) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 18 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). 19 conceives of no reason why plaintiff did not act diligently 20 in filing this reconsideration motion. 21 untimeliness – warrants denial of plaintiff’s reconsideration 22 motion. 23 2008 WL 824000, at * 1 (D.Ariz. Mar. 25, 2008) (denying 24 untimely motion for reconsideration where “good cause [had] 25 not been shown.”) (citing, in turn, LRCiv 7.2(g)(2)); see 26 also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Pro 27 se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that 28 govern other litigants.”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 See id. Plaintiff did not Instead, he waited until March 21, 2012, Further, plaintiff did not address the See Chavez v. On this record, the court This basis alone – (citing Baker v. D.A.R.A. II, Inc., . . . , -3- 1 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court's local 2 rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”)). 3 4 5 Conclusion Because plaintiff Proctor’s reconsideration motion was 6 not timely filed in accordance with LRCiv 7.2(g)(2), and 7 because he did not establish the requisite good cause for 8 that timely filing, the court hereby DENIES his “Motion 9 Seeking Clarification of the Record, Order to Remand and 10 11 Reconsideration” (Doc. 38) (emphasis omitted). DATED this 4th day of June, 2012. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-

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?