Farnham v. Cooper et al
ORDER denying 19 Motion for Reconsideration. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/21/12.(LAD)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.,
No. CV-11-1094 PHX-DGC
John C. Cooper, et al.,
Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr. filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s February 23, 2012 order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Doc. 19; see
Doc. 17. In that order, the Court dismissed Farnham’s complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Doc. 17 at 2. The Court referred Farnham to
three prior orders issued by Judge Neil V. Wake dismissing Farnham’s substantially
identical complaint, first with leave to amend and then with prejudice. Id.; see Case No.
2:11-CV-00192-PHX-NVW, Docs. 6, 8, 10. Farnham now requests reconsideration as to
his claims against Defendant Forster only. Doc. 19 at 1.
Farnham’s motion does not meet the standards for reconsideration under Local
Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g)(1), which states that “[t]he Court will ordinarily deny a
motion for reconsideration . . . absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new
facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with
reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th
Cir. 2003). Farnham does not argue that the Court erred in dismissing his complaint; nor
does he present new facts or legal theories that he could not have presented earlier.
Rather, Farnham argues that “he now has an understanding of what the court has been
referring to in reference to suing defendants in their official capacity and should of [sic]
sued them in their individual capacity.” Doc. 19 at 1. This is not a proper basis to
reconsider the dismissal of Farnham’s complaint.
The Court is also not persuaded that Farnham would have a claim against
Defendant Forster for destruction of his property if he could simply correct or refile his
complaint “using the proper language.” Doc. 19 at 1. In addition to finding that the
Eleventh Amendment barred Farnham’s complaints against individuals in their official
capacity, Judge Wake previously found that Farnham had failed to allege sufficient facts
to state a claim. See Case No. 2:11-CV-00192-PHX-NVW, Docs. 6, 8, 10. The Court
quoted from Judge Wake’s final order: “[N]one of Farnham’s allegations against any
Defendant – especially his allegations of intent – rise ‘above the speculative level.’
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Any number of circumstances could explain Farnham’s loss
of property.” Doc. 17 at 2 (quoting 2:11-CV-00192-PHX-NVW, Doc. 10 at 4). The
Court went on to find that “Mr. Farnham’s instant complaint provides no new legal
theories or relevant factual allegations to cure the deficiencies of his prior cause of
action.” Doc. 17 at 2-3. Farnham has not shown that the Court’s order was in error or
that he now has sufficient new facts or legal theories to support his claims.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.’s motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 19) is denied.
Dated this 21st day of March, 2012.
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?