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)

Download PDF
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-

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?