Farnham v. Cooper et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 19 Motion for Reconsideration. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/21/12.(LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

No. CV-11-1094 PHX-DGC
ORDER

vs.
John C. Cooper, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr. filed a motion for reconsideration of the

16

Court’s February 23, 2012 order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Doc. 19; see

17

Doc. 17. In that order, the Court dismissed Farnham’s complaint for failure to state a

18

claim upon which relief can be granted. Doc. 17 at 2. The Court referred Farnham to

19

three prior orders issued by Judge Neil V. Wake dismissing Farnham’s substantially

20

identical complaint, first with leave to amend and then with prejudice. Id.; see Case No.

21

2:11-CV-00192-PHX-NVW, Docs. 6, 8, 10. Farnham now requests reconsideration as to

22

his claims against Defendant Forster only. Doc. 19 at 1.

23

Farnham’s motion does not meet the standards for reconsideration under Local

24

Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g)(1), which states that “[t]he Court will ordinarily deny a

25

motion for reconsideration . . . absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new

26

facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with

27

reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th

28

1

Cir. 2003). Farnham does not argue that the Court erred in dismissing his complaint; nor

2

does he present new facts or legal theories that he could not have presented earlier.

3

Rather, Farnham argues that “he now has an understanding of what the court has been

4

referring to in reference to suing defendants in their official capacity and should of [sic]

5

sued them in their individual capacity.” Doc. 19 at 1. This is not a proper basis to

6

reconsider the dismissal of Farnham’s complaint.

7

The Court is also not persuaded that Farnham would have a claim against

8

Defendant Forster for destruction of his property if he could simply correct or refile his

9

complaint “using the proper language.” Doc. 19 at 1. In addition to finding that the

10

Eleventh Amendment barred Farnham’s complaints against individuals in their official

11

capacity, Judge Wake previously found that Farnham had failed to allege sufficient facts

12

to state a claim. See Case No. 2:11-CV-00192-PHX-NVW, Docs. 6, 8, 10. The Court

13

quoted from Judge Wake’s final order: “[N]one of Farnham’s allegations against any

14

Defendant – especially his allegations of intent – rise ‘above the speculative level.’

15

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Any number of circumstances could explain Farnham’s loss

16

of property.” Doc. 17 at 2 (quoting 2:11-CV-00192-PHX-NVW, Doc. 10 at 4). The

17

Court went on to find that “Mr. Farnham’s instant complaint provides no new legal

18

theories or relevant factual allegations to cure the deficiencies of his prior cause of

19

action.” Doc. 17 at 2-3. Farnham has not shown that the Court’s order was in error or

20

that he now has sufficient new facts or legal theories to support his claims.

21
22
23

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.’s motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 19) is denied.
Dated this 21st day of March, 2012.

24
25
26
27
28
-2-