Ho v. Griego et al

Filing 25

ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Defendant Provide Plaintiff with More Paper (Doc. 13) is denied as moot. Plaintiff's Motion to Move Forward with Case 16 is denied as moot. Plaintiff's Motion to Speed up Process 17 is deni ed as moot. Plaintiff's Motion to Disregard Previous Motion Requesting More Time to Complete Legal Documents 18 is denied as moot. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint 21 is denied. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 23 is denied as moot. This case must remain closed. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/4/11.(DMT)

1

WO

KM

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Steven Ho,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Benjamin Griego, et al.,

13

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-904-PHX-GMS (MEA)
ORDER

14
15

On May 5, 2011, Plaintiff Steven Ho, who is confined in the Corrections Corporation

16

of America-Saguaro Correctional Center (CCA-SCC), filed a pro se civil rights Complaint

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May

18

18, 2011 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint

19

because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an

20

amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order.

21

On June 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. On June 23, 2011,

22

Plaintiff filed another “First Amended Complaint,” which the Court construed as a Second

23

Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). On July 6, 2011, the Court dismissed the Second Amended

24

Complaint and this action for failure to state a claim (Doc. 14), and the Clerk of Court

25

entered Judgment (Doc. 15).

26

Pending before the Court are the following Motions:

27

(1)

28

July 1, 2011 Motion Requesting Defendant Provide Plaintiff with More Paper
(Doc. 13);

1

(2)

July 8, 2011 Motion to Move Forward with Case, in which Plaintiff requests

2

that the Court proceed “without the Warden’s answer concerning the grievance

3

issues of this case” (Doc. 16);

4

(3)

5
6

Court grant him a preliminary injunction (Doc. 17);
(4)

7
8

July 8, 2011 Motion to Speed up Process, in which Plaintiff requests that the

July 8, 2011 Motion to Disregard Previous Motion Requesting More Time to
Complete Legal Documents (Doc. 18);

(5)

9

July 28, 2011 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 21);
and

10

(6)

11

This case has been dismissed. Plaintiff’s Motions are therefore moot and will be

12

July 28, 2011 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 23).

denied.

13

To the extent that Plaintiff intends the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended

14

Complaint to be treated as a Motion for Reconsideration, “[m]otions to reconsider are

15

appropriate only in rare circumstances.” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp.

16

1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct

17

manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v.

18

Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Such motions should not be used for the

19

purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought through – rightly

20

or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v.

21

Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).

22

The Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 10), the July 6, 2011

23

Order of Dismissal, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint.

24

The Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision.

25

IT IS ORDERED:

26

(1)

27
28

Plaintiff’s July 1, 2011 Motion Requesting Defendant Provide Plaintiff with

More Paper (Doc. 13) is denied as moot.
(2)

Plaintiff’s July 8, 2011 Motion to Move Forward with Case (Doc. 16) is denied
-2-

1

as moot.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

(3)

Plaintiff’s July 8, 2011 Motion to Speed up Process (Doc. 17) is denied as

(4)

Plaintiff’s July 8, 2011 Motion to Disregard Previous Motion Requesting More

moot.

Time to Complete Legal Documents (Doc. 18) is denied as moot.
(5)

Plaintiff’s July 28, 2011 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

(Doc. 21) is denied.
(6)

Plaintiff’s July 28, 2011 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 23)

is denied as moot.

10

(7)

This case must remain closed.

11

DATED this 4th day of August, 2011.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-