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)

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-